The URL can be used to link to this page

1c Approved MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MINITI'ES EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION WITH CARVER COUNTY RE: TW MATTER MAY 27, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p,m, by Mayor Furlong. Mayor Fro'long; Councilmemlxa's Ayotte, labatt, Lundquist and Peterson; Todd Geflmrdt; Justin Miller, Attorney Thomas Scott. Various aspects of the litigation were discussed. Mayor Furlong adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. 104731 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at S:45 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBER~ ~: Mayor Furlong, Councilman ~ Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist and Cotmcilnmn Peterson ~TAFF PRF_~ENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanens~ Bruce DeJong, Todd Hoffman, Jerry Ruegemer, and Bob Generous POLICY. Jerry Ruegemer provided an update on the Tobacco Use Policy and passed out a Tobacco Free Youth Recreation newsletter. Councilman Ayotte asked how much CSO time and expense would be needed to enforce this policy. Staff indicated it was more an education policy than an enforcement issue. Councilman Labatt stated that a lot of laws, state, county and city are not necessarily enforced but it provides hw enforcement a door to open to probable cause for such things as underage smoking. Mayor Furlong and Councilnmn Peterson questioned if this was the direction the city wanted to go. Councilman Ayotte stated he wanted to see ordinances that could be enforced. B. oF zma mJD( ET Bruce DeJong reviewed the revised budget sheets he had prepared. Councilman Lundquist asked if staff had any concerns or "red flag" issues. Bruce DeJong stated there was still some concern with projected revenues but felt it was more of a concern for next year than thig year. Councilman Ayotte asked for an update on the water meter program. Councilman Peterson stated it is beneficial to see year to date actual numbers versus year to date budget numbers. Monthly numbers would he the best scenario, so that cotmcil could track trends and variances to the budget. Bruce DeJong clarified questions on the cash balances report and inv~ summary report. He explained his investment strategy in the current economic climate. C. TAXATIQN/FINANCE/STRATEGIC PLAN: 2004 B~DGET PR0~. Todd Gerhardt and Bruce DeJong explained what staff has done to date and outlined the proposed calendar for the upcoming 2004 budget process, incorporating the Key trmancial Strategies the City Council has been discussing. Bruce DeJong explained how legislative items would be affecting the budget and new state laws on levy limits. Cotmcil discussed possible increases in revenue. Todd Gerhardt stated the City would follow the Building Code for increase in permit fees. Councilman Lundquist suggested keeping expenses flat from last year to thi~ and being aggressive in order to address the TIF deficit issue. Bruce DeJong asked if council was comfortable raising the levy limit. Councilman Lundquist stated he was not to offse.~ expenses but would be to reduce the TIF deficit. Councilman Peterson suggested targeting a 0% levy forced upon the City, i.e. sheriff's contract, new librm~, etc. Councilman Labatt disagreed with zero base budget and reminded the council that the citizens of ~ do not want to see cuts in service. Mayor Furlong stated if there axe increase costs, they will have to be offset from somewhere else in the budget. He stated the city has to figure out a way to have zero growth in expenses. Councilman Labatt suggested giving staff the increase in the levy for expenses. Gerhardt stated staff would come back with scenarios for City Council to review. Mayor li~m-lo~ adjourned the work session meeling at 7:0~ Submitted by Todd Co-erhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim Todd CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin 1Vliller, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, Teresa Burgess, Bob Czenerous, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRF~ENT FOR ALL ITEM~: Kristin Johnson Steven Lillehaug Jim Bohn Glenn Stolar Judy Schmieg Kali Veerman James Fuhrmann Ierry & Janet Panlsen 816 Ashley Court Planning Commission EDA 6395 Oxbow Bend 200 West 77~ Street 2520 Christian Drive, Chaska 7614 Kiowa Avenue 7305 I2redo Drove PUBLIc ANNQUN~q~IM~'.NT~: PRF~ENTATION QF MAPLE I.F. AF AWARD TO ALISON BLA~XOWI~K. Mayor Furlong: Our first item of business, public announcement is a presentation of Maple Leaf Award to Alison Blackowialc So Alison, I saw you hem. If you could join me here down in front. Alison served on the Planning Commission for the city since 1996 through 2003. Also during that period I think you also served as Chair or Co-Chair of the Park Referendmn Committee as well, which is a lot of work I know and produced great results for our city. So in addition to serving on the Planning Commission she served as Chair of that commission for two years and I know that's a lot of effort and time in addition to just pmpming for the meetings themselves so Alison, on behalf of the City Council and all the residents of Chanhassen, thank you for all your efforts and contributions that you've made to our city and for your contributions on the Planning Commission. Thank you. Alison Blackowialc You're very welcome. Mayor Furlong: This is your last chance. Alison Blackowiak: This is my last chance, okay. I just want to say it's really been an honor and a privilege to serve the city of Chanhassen on the Planning Commissiom Despite what people say it really has been a lot of fun. I've learned a lot and if anybody's interested you know, different commissions are always looking for good people so step up and be a part of the city because it's a lot of fun. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 CONSENT AGENDA: approve the following recommendations: bi Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated May 6, 2003 d. Approval of Renaming BaH Fields North of Ci~ HalL All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Unless ~'s objective we'll consider items 1Co) and, or excuse me, l(a) and l(c) under, as item 7 under new business. Without objection. VISITOR P~ATIONS. lill Shipley: C_mod evening. My name is lill Shipley. I reside at 261 Eastwood Court in Chanhassen and I'm here tonight representing the Friends of the C~mmhassen Library. The most significant addition to our city since the Chanhas~n Dinner The, ater will be opening in 81 days. We know that you all know I'm referring to the ~n Library and how excited we all are about that. It's been so fun watching the building progress and we're excited about the park that's going to accompany it. About 20 memtnxs of the Friends are busy working on the grand opening celebration and the Friends of the Library will be funding about 80 percent of that celebration for the whole community. 294 children participated in the Children's Tile Project. Many of your children were there. I'll warn'you thexe's going to be a real traffic jam in the children bathroom on opening day as everyone is looking for their tile. For the public record, and for our city history we want to use thin oppommity tonight to update you on the status of the Friends space in the new library, specify as it relates to the light snack and beverage service or coffee shop service. That was a component of the new library that was clearly identified in the needs assessment that drove the referendum. On December 9, 2002, just last December, this issue was lengthily discussed at the City Council meeting and at the conclusion of that meeting the City Council unanimously passed a motion directing staff to work with the applicant, Friends, to bring back to the council an analysis of proposal for a coffee shop that would do three things. One, provide a self-supporfng program and everything that would be encompassed in that definition. Two, the cost benefit of the proposal including some sort of a valuation on the services that would be provided to the community out of thin space as a result of the city's investment. And three, the potential and a plan for the return to the city of some portion, if not all of the up front investment. The Friends initiated discussion with the city staff on January 7e~ of 2003 and asked for claxification on proceeding. We met with city staff on January 3ffh and were told that the council will not suptgn~ any concept unless the city can recoup every penny they have put into it. City staff advised us that condition number one of the motion must be fulfilled, fully satisfied before conditions 2 and 3 would even be conddered, which in effect voids condition number 3 of the motion that was passed. Furdm'ma~, city staff was unwilling to explore the discrepancies in the cost, the actual cost of the build-out of the coffee shop where the Friends had had a contractor bid it out and had a price estimate, of less than $50,000. The City has been operating with the numbers of $80,000 to $120,000 and we have repeatedly objected to that number, saying it is falsely high. The Friends had commitments for partial funding of the cost of this, but not for all of it. We know that you approved a plumbing change order so that the terrsTzo floor will not have to be jack ~ up if you figure out a way to get a coffee shop in the new library in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, whenever. But we're really sorry and want this stated on the public record that we were unwilling to meet your demands of paying every cent of City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 the build-out. It seemed like we were really close. The librmy board had approved thi~. The design team had approved it. We had a plan that worked in the existing space. We had a willing and capable contractor, vendor to come in and work on it with us. And it seemed like we might be able to provide the community with the amenities that they had requested. That they had approved and that they had also paid for with the 2000 referendum. The auticipalz~ $50,000 cost for the build-out is going to mm out to be one-h~f of one percent of the entire cost of the project that we're doing out there. I wish we could have achieved the coffee shop. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Am them any other individuals wishing to speak during the visitor presentations this evening? If there are none we'll close visitor presentations and move on to the other items on our agenda. DEPARTMENT UPDATE. LC Widmer: Good evening everybody. I've just got a little rmuthly utxlates from a year ago, Sergeant Olson put these figures together. He wasn't able to maim it tonight. I guess for those who don't know me I'm Lieutenant V~F~tmer and I take care of the patrolling division of the sheriWs office. Calls were about 262 calls up from last year by thi~ time, in April. And traffic details, last year you had one traffic detail in April. This year you had 47. Really on putting more spotted details in the different neighborhood where you get complaints. Did about 131 more traffic stops than last year. Suspicious activity is up by 19, and that's a lot of you more, especially at night time when they see something suspicious. They're not scared to call... car prowls and various activities like that. Alarms have gone up about 26 more than a year ago. Miscellaneous non-criminal, you know citizen assist...property, general law enforcement questions, civil and juvenile disciplinary problems. Gun permits to acqtfim were up by 14. Starting tomorrow I think everybody knows they passed the law that people will be allowed to carry a lot easier than they used to so that's going to be a new challenge for the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office is the one that takes care of everybody in the county that can carry a handgun or long gun in the state of 1Vlinnesota so the paperwork is going to start flowing tomorrow and it's going to be quite exciting. Then the citations are up 64 mare than a year ago last April Lately you've been having, this past month you've been having a few thefts from vehicles. They're concentrating on business park on the east end of Ctmnhassen and apammmt complexes and going after car stereos and added on. A lot of people keep their CD's or cell phones laying on their front seats, their purses, everything...people are starting to break into the cars and tak~ them items so keep in mind to keep your valuables out of sight. Take them with you in the house or apartment or business or put them in your trunk, someplace where they're not so easily visible and tempting to people. A lot of people are going to them areas because there's a lot of concentration of cars. They can hide inbetween a couple cars really easy and nobody's going to see them very. You look out and you do a quick duck and you're not going to see them like in a private yard. We're having a rash of business btuglaries in the last month too. I know you had a couple over the weekend again. They're hitting industrial park...keys so trying to encourage business people to put some better locking systems on their businesses and Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth will be willing to help anybody that's got questions or better ways to do security for your business. CMme Prevention Specialist and Sergeant Olson went to a Neighborhood Watch meeting last week and Councilman Ayotte was there and...they really appreciated that. Beth also put out two crime alerts on the business burglaries. Project I_e, adfoot, we'll be meeting next week with the residents on Highway 101 just south of Highway 5. We've been getting some complaints about their ma:tic in their area so we're going to see what they can do to help. The other area now with the Highway 101 being closed just north of 212, they're getting a little more traffic on Bluff Creek Road so they're going to try to do some more traffic City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 enforcement in that area and try to keep the people from speeding through the short, they've even got detours. People like to go... _speed__ up to make up for the lost time so they're going to concentrate on that some more. Anybody got any questions for the sheriff's office? Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: First off again, and FI1 comment I was at the last Neighbc~ood Watch meeting and for the people at home and the people here, soliciting the support of Sexgeam Olson and Beth Hoiseth in participating in Neighborhood Watch and possibly getting one going is song the community really needs to expand upon. It's a great program. They do a great job. With respect to homeland defense, it's another st~ in the right direction. We really need to continue to concentrate along that line and I hope that we can get some more support for this fine program that Chanhassen has. With reganl to traffic details. It's up. It's ~ It's very positive. Lieutenant I know you won't be able to answer some of these questions but I ask that you take them back, see if you can get some infonnalion. It is a revenue generator. I've mentioned that in the past. It also seems to be working with respect to hitting our areas that are a problem. Our city manager does a great job in identifying that. I know he'll continue to do that. much. Could you find out what the rational is for that particular percent lxe. akdown? I'd be curious. Also is it realistic to keep up the gain that we're experiencing? I mean it's very positive because I'm sure it's paying dividends. Do you think that's an area that we can continue to see that sort of growth? And I don't know if you can answer that now or. Lt. Widmer: I guess I don't understand the question. Councilman Ayotte: The number of tickets. You're doing a great job doing that. I'd like to see more tickets. Do you see that's a realistic possibility to help defer the traffic problems we've had in the city? Lt. Widmer: You know it's, I think it's a good possi~ty. We've been having, what we call our double up days where we cut down our training that we used to do on the double up days almost in half so we're always looldng for items like u'affic details where we put 4 or 5 sq~ods in one area and concentrate on speeders, stop sign, passing on the right and stuff, so that's a good possibility. No guarantees but that's the stuff we try to instill in the deputies to really concentrate Councilman Ayotte: Okay, last question. I see a little hit of a dip, DUI typicafly is a problem in Carver County, and I would suspect that's still a major concern for us. Is that true7 Lt. Widmer. That is correct Councilman Ayotte: And I see that we dipped a little bit. Is there a reason why we're under the traffic and alcohol, that we're not seeing an increase in the number of DUI's because usually ff there's an increase in traffic activity, I would suspect typically there's a positive con-elation that there would also be an increase in DUI or am I under a misconception there? Lt. Widmer: It's true but it also, you know if the number of calls that our officers, you know we had 262 more calls, it takes less time away from other things like Ixa~c and stuff. It correlates and stuff, a lot more people are calling in on their cell phones which helps catch a lot of these that people all of a sudden see a squad car, they do a lot better job driving or concentration more than when they don't, but those citizens behind them are a little more careless about it. But you know City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 it's up and down and now with the warmer weather, people think more in the paxtying mood for a while and then they forget about themselves when they get behind a motor vehicles and staxt driving which is a big problem in Carver County. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Labatt. Lundq~ Councilman Lundquist: Liemenant Widmer, the Project Le, adfoot that you're getting ready to meet with the resident of 101, has the sheriff's depaxtm~nt had any extra visibility or any extra effort concentrated even since a month ago when we talked with those citizens about that or are you kind of waiting to frame up with Project Leadfoot to see what your actions are going to be7 Lt. Widmer: Sergeant Olson is you know encourage the deputies to try to spend a little bit more time in that area and see if they can determine what the problem is. I guess the citizens want the speed limit lowered but/V[nDot, the speed limit's fine so I guess the perception of how fast people are driving a lot of times and they think they may be going a lot faster than they really are so, I think he said he did a Ixaffic survey and it was an average speed of like 42 miles an hour in a 40 miles per hour speed zone which isn't outrageous. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Labatt: No, none. Mayor Furlong: None. Lieutenant thank you. Appreciate your time and all your support, thank you. Chief Wolff, good evening. Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor, council. Quick reIx~ The DNR burning ban that was put in place earlier this spring is over, effective a few weeks ago, which now allows people to burn with permits. The rec burning was never in a burning ban scenario. The rec buxning's any pile less than 3 feet in diameter. And citizens can do that without pexmits. Our paid on call staffing's at 42. R's stable. It's been stable. It's been there within ore or two for at least 6 months. We do have one on leave at this point. Our year to date calls are up 28 percent from last year. About 10 percent higher than any year we've had. Not driven by any particular mix of calls. It's really just the overall mix increasing. Last year was an unusual year. The only year we saw in the last 10 years where it didn't go up, it went dowm Once again we're back on the curve that we always were on which was about 10 percent a year growtl~ Driven by population and commercial infrllgtrU~llre, roads, you name it, we get called out on a lot of thin~ that axe impacted by those factors. We do have severe storm season in the upper Midwest approaching. What you saw in the South a month ago will start hitting north, further north and so we've been fortunate the past 3 or 4 years without any major severe weather up here in the spring but I think you can only play that numbers game for a while and it does hit us in cycles. Prepare for mass casualty type events. We do a drill once every 3 years. This year we're doing a drill in two weeks, on the 16* of June at the Dinner Theal~r in cooperation with the Dinner Theater. It's going to be kind of along the Homelalld Defense theme where actually I think: I me, a~ I don't have the full picture because we're part of the response but the folks that have developed this indicated that it's going to be a release of a chemical in the Dinner Theater alld that's about ali we know, and we'll respond locally. We'll have county assets, regional assets and state assets also assisting us if we need them for that drill. The council and city staff are welcome to also join us at that event on June 16t~. Lieutenant Widmer mentioned the conceal and can'y change tomorrow. It only affects the fire depm'tment really fi'om two ~ves. One, it does make City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 responding potentially a slightly diffet~t scenario, particularly with motor vehicle accidents. So we're getting some training around thaL We always respond with the sheriff's department, any time we know that there is a weapon or we think that there's a weapoll involved and we wait Ulltil the scene is secure. But the other side of the equation is that we're building policy for our fire fighters so that they understand that it's not an option for them to bring weapons on calls, and believe it or not that issue comes up when you change the law like thaL But we're not going to allow that. It's not going to be a policy of our department to allow any weapons to be carried, either at the station or on calls. Does cotmcil or the Mayor have any questions? Mayor Furlong: Questions for the chief. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I do John_ With regard to other fire departtt~nts in areas where carrying a side arm has been a long term practice, examp~ Texas, have we had any information exchanged on how those fire depa~m~nts react and deal with the fact that them may be a firearm involved in an accident? Chief John Wolff: That's a good question councilman. There are 36 or 37 states that allow conceal and carry and for the most part the fire service, on a national basis doesn't lxomote firearms for first responders for either EMS or fire bazmat response. We work really closely with the county. They typically have one or two vehicles in the city at all times and I wouldn't say it never ha~ but it usually happens that they arrive first, just because of their proximity to downtown or their proximity to the city relative to our members. We have to go from home to the station, pick up our equi~ and then go. Probably the membem with the most exposure would be someone like myself who respands directly from home in a staff vehicle and I guess I'm not convinced that that's something we need to do or even look at doing. But it's certainly some3Jfing that we would keep, you know as conditions change and events change, you know we might keep that as an option but at this point there really is not a national practice for that or really any kind of a precedent outside of the one you mentioned. And I don't know if that's unique to the Lone Star state or not. Councilman Ayotte: In Texas they do a nnmher of things that I won't, but what I was referring to, not so much with our fires and carrying, F m asking whether or not there are other measures that they may take. For example flack jackets. Do you know if any other fire d~-~utment does that sort of thing? Chief John Wolff: I know that the Los Angeles Fire Depamnent issued flack jackets after the South Central riots because their fire fighters were being shot at. As a practice day in and day out, I think there are in certain cities, certain ladder engine companies, depending on their location, that issue that kind of equipment That kind of safety equipmenC I don't think we're in that kind of an exposure area but we certainly would weigh that on an ongoing basis. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: Yeah I've got one. You know I was just thinking here, reading about your rearofitted grass rig 217 and looking at greater flexibility and better effectiveness in fighting grass fires and how the grass fire in Eden Prairie burned two homes. Chief John Wolff: Two homes. City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Has the fire department thought about contacting Polaris? They have those ATV's that they will give to public safety agencies and look at retrofitting one of those. Maybe a 6 by 6 with a water tank Chief John Wolff.' It's a good question. We have had contact with Polaris over the past 2 years. Some of their regional marketing people, and we've also worked with some dealers and I didn't do the direct negotiating with the vendors but the individual that did, the ~ I got was that that program has been fairly tapped, but they would be willing to work with us on either a used or a new vehicle, lease or purchase kind of scenario. So the other thing I'll say about that is, we are interested in a 6 by. We think there's a lot of applications that it mak~ sense for given our service area and the kinds of calls that we may need it. Our dive team could use it to access difficult areas, bringing tanks in and out. ~y the winter weather brings challenging terrain, off road, on road, and grass fires. When we had a very large grass fire 3 or 4 years ago, we contacted a number of mutual aid fire departments in the county that had off road vehicles like that and they provided a great deal of assistance, so there's a lot of applications for them. Councilman Labatt: You may even want to re-evaluate or re. Chief John Wolff: I mean if you have some contacts that we could perhaps, you know maybe we should talk off line because. Councilman Labatt: Give me a call. Chief 1ohn Wolff: Yeah, be happy to do that, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Other questions? Chief thank you. Chief John Wolff: You bet. Mayor Furlong: Appreciate all your efforts and those of your department. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUF~T FOR AN ON-SALE INTOXICATING IJQUOR LICENSE FOR cml~TI.~'~ ~$0 WI~-~T 79TM STREET. Public Present: NRm~ Kaela Brenner Chris Peterson Address 800 Nicollet, Minneapolis 3470 Washington Drive, Eagan Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, this is a public hearing. Staff did background checks. No negative comn~nts were received. At this time we would ask that you open up the public hearing for citizen comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We will open the public hearing at this time. If there's anybody who wishes to speak on this issue, please come forward and identify yourself. Is ~we anybody who wishes to speak? If not we will close the public hearing. Back to cotmcil. Council are there any questions for staff at this time? If there are none, is them any discussion7 There's no discussion. Is there a motion? City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is them a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'H call the question. Councilman Peterson moved, Coundlm~ Lumtqu~t seconded to approve an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Chipotle Mexican Grm of Colorado, LLC, dba Chipolte Mexican Grill AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR A LAND USE ~MlZNT FROM ~ENTIAL I.ARGE LQT 'IQ RF..,~IOP:NTIAL LOW DENSITY'~ REZOI~IING FROM A2- AGRICULTURAl. Iq'-qTATE DISTRICT TO RSF~ SINGLE FA_M~.Y RF.,~IDENTIAL~ AND ~tIBD~IQN OF LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ HII.~E OAl~q, INTQ 5 LQTS WITH A VARIANCE FOR ~ USE OF A PRIVATe: ~ut~:p:'r~ 8800 FOwlerS BOIj-L~:VARD~ A n.n R0S AV Public Present: Name Address Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly Donald & Virginia Coban K_risti ~Buan 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 2~a Stx~ Excelsior 8821 Slm~et Trail 8750 Powers Boulevard 8740 Flamingo Drive Bob Generous: Cnaod evening. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Council members. I'll be brief. Basically there's three parm to this application. The first one is a policy decisio~ The land is currently guided for residential large lot development, which means a ~ 2 ½ acre lot size. The applicant is requesting a land use amendment to residential low density which permits density, or development down to 15,000 square feet. A couple weeks ago the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the land use amen~t and therefore the subsequent rezoning and subdivision were also denied because they'd be incons~ with that Unf~y in this instance staff has a conflicting motion. We believe that the land use anaendmeat should be approved and then the subsequent rezoniug and subdivision would be consistent with that land use. Historically the city has provided infrastructure i ,rn?rovelll~ts to this area to ~ a more suburban style development. The subdivision, the applicant has revised his plans to comply with all the RSF district regulations. We have worked out the bluff setback on the rear of the property which is on the west side of the property and sufficient building pads are available on all those sites. There have been discussions with the, or at least letters with the abutting property owner to expand the subdivision to incorporate them. The ~ subdivision on this ~ did include the property to the norttL The street was down the middle of the protnm]t and provided access to both properties and allowed Mr. Rossavik to have 6 lots that complied with ordinance. However without the property to the no~.h, all the in~ i ,mpmve~ have been located on this property and he's down to 5 lots. Again, the Planning Commigsion recommended denial of the land use amen~t. Staff is recommending approval and it's up to you to make a final determination. With that I'd be happy to answer any questi~. City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there questions for staff at thi~ time? Councilman Lundqulst: Bob, back on that, the drawing that has the five lots corning off the cul- de-sac. Access to Lots number, the two farthest south. Yeah those two. Is that a private driveway that comes off of that? Bob Generous: Correct. There is a variance as part of this subdivision to provide a private street. One of the conditions, number 17 would be to extend the easement down to the south propexty line so that if in the future that property came in for development, they could acc~s through this site and the applicant is agree__~le to doing that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Is there, second question. On Powers Boulevard, where this cul- de-sac would be drawn, is there a bre~ in the median at that point in the Powers where you'd come out of that and mm left going north onto Powers? Bob Generous: No. Councilman Lundquist: So it's a right-in/fight-out? Bob Generous: It's fight-in/fight-out. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Bob, a question. Follow-up on Councilman Lundqulst's question on the private drive. Is them a limitation on the use of private drive or numher of residences right now by ordinance? Bob Generous: Yes. A maximmn of 4 lots may be accessed via private street withom a variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and under this plan there would be 4 on this? Bob Generous: They'd have 2 under this. Mayor Furlong: The last 2, okay. Bob Generous: Lots 2 and 3. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. IS the applicant here this evening? We did receive copies of the comments of the Planning Commission meeting so, but if there are other things you'd like to add or issues you'd like to make sure the council's aware. Mark Kelly: I'm ready to answer any questions you might have. My name's Mark Kelly. I'm here on behalf of Arild Rossavik, the applicant so if there's questions I'd be happy to answer Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? For the applicant If none, we'H bring it back to the council for discussion. What is them to discuss? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: My general feeling on the development is, I think it's the,eventually I believe that it's going to be the right thing to have that ~ developed. Along Powers and it matches the townhouses that are there. It matches some of the Lake Susan area things. However, City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 a number of concerns that I have are the right-in/right-out with no break in the median in Powers. That's going to cause a number of different things, you know U-tums on Powers and all kinds of things like that, in my opinion. And having that property develop without the property to the north being developed, kind of puts thi~, puts a little devel~t in the middle of a, kind of on an island and I understand Mr. Rossavik's le~a's around the inv~t that the city has in the infrastructure i .mprovements but I believe those in~ i ,mprovoments were put those because of the i ,m?tovements on Powers and were put there to go along with that and it made sense at that time so. And I know that we have some issues with the property to the north and Mr. Rossavik trying to come together on that but at this time Fm inclined to decide to go with the Planning Commission's motion to deny and walt and see ff we can get the property to the north or work out something where we can get some better access on and off of Powers before we go ahead and change the zoning and go ahead with the suIxtivision. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments or discussion from council members. Councilman Ayotte: Could I just know whether or not the Councilman Lundquist's desire, can you put time line to that? Do you have any sense as to the area to the north and what might be percolating in that area. Councilman Lundquist: By percolating? Councilman Ayotte: In~resL Has anyone had an interest in developing the other area that Councilman Lundquist was referring to? Councilman Peterson: Is that a question to stuff or to whom? Councilman AyolIe: To staff. Kate Aanenson: There's a non-conforming business being nm out of that. I think at this point Fm not sure that that owner is interested in moving or developing the property at this time. Councilm~n Ayotte: So right now ar in no foreseeable futm'e do you see any evolution for tl~? Kate Aanenson: I can't speak for the owner... Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Thank you, Mayor Furlong: Other discussion. Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Mr. Lundquistinthisonethat. I tend to agree with Mr. Lundquist that this creates an island. I mean if you look at, we put in the easement there for a private drive to look at the future development of the southern lot. It just seems like, if this area is envisioned to be this, we should do it all at one time. Let's put the circle in the right way. When we look at cutting the median if we have to. Put in a turn lane so you don't create a right- in/fight-out. I just think this is just a bit premaun~ for doing it. If we're going to do it, let's do it Mayor Furlong: Other comments. Councilman Peterson: I agree. I think my position a year or two ago when it was ho~ was that it was not appropriate for the current time and I think when you do it, when we have the 10 City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 opportunity in front of us to rezone, wherever that might be, this is the greatest, or smmgest latitude I would say of making a decision. I think when we do consider rezoning, it has to be compelling and compelling would potentially define as having a unique product to make a decision on it. That everybody is supportive of. And we don't necessarily have either of those here tonight so I think that's another reason over and above what my fellow councilmen have already stated so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And I would concur with the earlier comments in tm'ms of sense of prematurity where we have 1 out of I believe them are 7 parcels within thi~ development. We will create that island which I don't think makes sense. Traffic issues, ff that can be addressed, we still have the issue of the single re, zoning within a development so I would at thi~ time also concur with what I think my council me~ will say, and that it is not the time for this. So are there any other discussions or is there a motion7 Councilman Lundquist: Motion to deny the land use map amendment from residential large lot to residential low density, to deny rezoning from A2 to residential single family and deny the preliminary plat of Subdivision Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the nmtion? Tom Scott: Mayor, as I, the staff mtxax, is the maker of the motion adopting the Planning Commission's recommended vote? Councilman Lundqnist: Yes. Tom Scott: Which also includes the language that based on the project being pmamture without the inclusion of the abutting properties? Councilman Lundqnist: Yes. Tom Scott: Okay, that's fine. Just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Furlong: And there was a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If time is none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Coun~bn~n Labatt seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residenflal-Imrge Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, l~ill~de Oaks based on the project being premature without the inclusion of the abutting properties; and denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Nlll~ide Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan; and denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision ~P)7-12 creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street for the Powers Circle Addition based on non-compliance with the zoning ordinance. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Next item on our agenda is a request, Fm sorry. 11 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Tom Scott: You do need to add on the rezoning and the preliminary plat. Mayor Furlong: My sense was we were trying to deal with all those in one motion. Tom Scott: I apologize. Mayor Furlong: We're trying to be efficient here. Tom Scott: I apologize. Mayor Furlong: No that's fine. My sense was it was all one motion. Is the cotmeil consensus as well? Thank you. CONSIDER REQUEST FQR A LAND U~]E MAP AMIO~MENT FROM ~ENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO PUBU~-PUBUCi REZONING FROM RSF, SINGL~ r~.¥ v~-~m~ A~ OI-Ol~IC~ mSTITtrnONnL TO Aa, AGRICI, JLTURAL E~TATE DISTRI~'T; A CONDmQNAL USE PERMIT FQR ~ USE OF ~ PRQPERTY A~ A (~IE'TERY; AND SITE PLAN ~; 381 W~TVSrH ST~T, SAND~, ~~ SEltGLEY, n~C~ A~ ST. HUm~RT'S cm~c~ ST. HC~mtT'S C~METmtY. Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor and me~ of the cotmcil. There's actually four motions as a pan of this request. The existing St Hubert's church, the existing cemetery and the future expansion which St. Hubert's is requesting. This site was guided. It has two diff~ zonings on it. One is office institutional and the other is single family resin. At this time what the staff's goal is to ~y to make those consistent. The current cemetery is non-conforming in it's zoning request. In looking at the site plan...~on of the expansion we looked at the residential. One of the concerns that the staff had, there was some talk of putting some office there at one time is that there is residential across the street which is a very nice neighborhood and as you got the Chapel I-rtll across the street trying to maintain the integrity of that as the traffic moves through that area, is Inv, scrving that. So the expansion of the cemetm'y in the staff's mind really provides a nice buffer edge for the ~ on the other side and to prou~ the integri~ of that nice neighborhood across the streec So in accomplishing a couple of the goals and making the land use and the zoning consistent, again there's four motions. With the cm'm~ cemetery expansion of the 3.43, being just slightly over 5 acres of cemetery which will allow for another 3,000 grave sites. Again the motion's a land use amendment Changing this from residential to an expansion site. Res~ back to public, semi-public. That would be again accommodating future use. The rezoning again would be agricultural. We would be changing everything back to A2 except for the existing church which would be OI, which is consistent. It wouldn't be a spot zoning. It'd be consist~t with what's across the street, the Chapel Hills so it ties in with that. We do put sight plan findings. Fll just take a minute and go through the site plan itself. One of the things that we wanted to do is to preserve the existing trees as they're laying it out most of the trees will be sited in such a way that they can be preserved. There will be one way in, one way out through there depending on which side of the cemetery as far as the processionals will be parking on site. It's wide enough that you can actually park 2 deep and again those are generally controlled. That was brought up at thc Planning Commission~ Making sure that we didn't have a uaffic problem on the site. Again, we didn't do a lot of site plan review. Most of these arc tended to be lower profile. Not a lot of statutes, although there will be some on the site. Again, it won't have any internal lighting. One of the issues that the staff had brought up is the possible access to across the bridge. We did receive feedback from the railroad. They are excited about that possibility. Movement, pedestrian movement across thc tracks is a 12 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 concern. We do have people that move across those tracks. There's no plan right now to move forward with any bridge connection, but through this site plan they've agreed to allow access in the future if we want to work towards that so it's in a public space again which is a nice amenity. It won't be lit. There is a street light that's out on the eastern edge which we're asking them that they pay for so we'H have street light and a sidewalk along this entire stretch of West 78~, which again will be street lit so there' s a nice pedes~ian movement on that side. So with that we believe that again it's a nice amenity. I again, a conditional use is required. There are findings in the staff report, and I apologize for the summary report in your staff report We left out some of the motions and minutes so if I can just reference you back to starting, the motions start on page 9. You can follow there. The Minutes that were attached in your packet that you approved as part of the consent agenda, are the Minums that are consistent with these motions. They've also been modified to reflect the amendments that the Planning Commission made so with that I would recommend approval of those four motions and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, on the two eastern sections of that piece, isn't the~ a house or some stmcun~ on one of those right now? Kate Aanenson: There's cturenfly a house on that site. And the church does own that house. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so does this rezoning affect that pmtnmy? Obviously they're going to tear it down eventually. Kate Aanenson: The house is consistent with that A2 zoning so when they're ready to move that off. Councilman LundquisC Okay. Councilman Labatt: Can you just kind of ballpark where that house is on that site plan you're looking at? Kate Aaneason: Whe~ the house is? Councilman Labatt: Where the house ouxenfly might be sitting. Just so I can try to get a. Kate Aanenson: I think I can get pretty close. Bill Sanders: Yeah, that's right. Kate Aanenson: The old ScMenk ~. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Kate the, just for claxificatio~ The additional conditions, 17 through 20 were added at the Planning Commission, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's ccow, cC 13 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I take it by the item 17, which is a sidewalk as shown will be included. Kate Aanenson: The sidewalk is shown on the site plan~ Unforumately it was missed by the staff but it is currently on their site plan. It's their intention to complete that sidewalk on the propo~. Mayor Furlong: So they would pay for that sidewalk and it's inslallafion? Kate Aanenson: That's correct And those street lights. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And is staff in concun'ence with the additional conditions of the Planning Commission? Kate Aanenson: That's Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions at all for staff? If there is none, is the applicant here this evening? It's not a public ~ but if you'd like to address the council or raise any issues. Good evening. Bill Sanders: Good evening. I'm Bill Sanders. I'm a lan~ architect that ~ the planning work for the church and here tonight too is Father Larry Blake with the St. Hubert's so we're happy to respond to any questions. If you'd like a presentation we can do that. If not we'll respond to questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are ~ any questions at this time for the applicant? No. Very good, thank you. Thanks for coming. With that we'll bring it back to council for discnssion~ Any discussion? Councilman Peterson: I think it's a reasonable request The only thing that I would maybe throw in and no pun intended when I say good faith. One of the things that we've had a relationship, the City's had a relationship with St. Hubert's for quite some time. We have old St. Hubert's church. Now we as a council haven't talked about that This is kind of, you know having this come before ns tonight generated my mind working a little bit saying, should we tndy be in the church business of managing and operating a church, and I don't think tonight's the night that we necessarily should discuss that but I'd like to po~mially present it to you Father Blake to, I think my perspective is that the City shouldn't be in the church leasing business and if we can in a good faith effort potentially work with staff to potentially return the church back to you for managing it, I think that would be a nice thing to have happen. So as a rrm_tte:r of point of discussion only, I'd certainly like you to consider that and work with staff to see what we can do to benefit both Father Lany Blake: I don't know ifit's ~for me to respond to that but i' d like to say, Father Larry Blake. Fm the Administrator at St. Hubert's and we have in yea_rs past, recent years past, with the previous city manager, been in discussion about that ~ and kind of came to an impasse about it and then Todd's predecessor moved on and we've not opened up that discussion with Todd but I think we'd be willing to do ttmt with Todd &nd the staff down the road~ Councilman Peterson: I think it'd be great. 14 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other discussion? No? Okay. I would concur with Councilman Peterson. I think this is a reasouab]e request and will be a good _,,amtion in th{,~ area so with that, is there a motion? Or series of motions. Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that the City Council adopt the land use plan amendment, the rezoning amen~t, conditional use permit and the site plan as presemed by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: A second's been rrmde, Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: For clar~ca~on that was the site plan with conditions 1 through 20. Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? If there is none we'll call the que~on without objection. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Land Use Plan amendment ~1 frmn Residential-Medium Density to Public/Semi-Public contingent on Metropolitan Council review and approval of the amendmenL AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seeonded that the City Council approve Rezoning ~-1 of the property from Sinl~e Family Residential, ~ and O1, Office Inntituflonal to Agricultural Estate District, A2, with the following condigns: . Approval of the rezoning is contingent upon approval of the hind u~e plan ~nt, conditional use permit and site plan. 2. Zoning of the church portion of the site shall ruumin Office Instiu~onal. AH voted in favor and the motion carried ummimoualy with a vote of 5 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit, CUP ~A)03-1, to permit the use of the property for a ceme~, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant enters into a conditional use permit agreement with the City. , Approval of the conditional use permit is eonfingemt upon approval of the land use amendment and rezoning. AH voted in favor and the motion carried nna~rnously with a vote of 5 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan 82003-3, plans prepared by Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, dated April 4, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 15 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 , . 1 Si , e , . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the n~~y cu ty to erosion control, site restoration and landsca~g. Building Official conditions: a. The owner or their represex~ative shall meet with the Building Inspections Division to determine permit requirements. A maximum gra~ded slope of 3:1 is allowed. Revise the grading plan in the south cenual portion of the site to comply or install a retaining wall. The applicant shall install water service for krigation of the site~ All plans must be signed by a registered professional engineer. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: a. Add Type I silt fence along the north pmtmay line of the ~ and Type H silt fence along the east and south property limits. b. Show all existing site fe. amres, i.e. house, driveways, street lights and sidewalk along West 78m Street, ulilities within West 78m Stxe~ ¢. Add the benchmark used for the site survey to the plans. d. Revise the legend to define all of the different line types, i.e. utilities, existing and ¢. Add a rock consmmfion entrance per City Detail Plate ~5301. f. Show pedestrian ramps at all necessary locations, per City Detail Plate #5215. g. Add the following City Detail Plates: 5203, 5300, 5301, 5311 & 5312. Show the location of the existing house on the "F..xi~nE Ca~tions" plan. All disturbed areas as a result of consuucfion activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with tbek conditions of approval. All of the existing curb cut accesses shall be removed and lVatored with sod, sidewalk, and curb. Concrete driveway aprons are required at the two proposed access points for the new driveway. The driveway aprons shall be constructed per City Detail Plates #5207. Removal of the existing single family home will require a permit. Approval of the Site Plan permit is contingent upon approval of the land use amendment, conditional use permit and re. zoning. Phase I of the expansion shall include the constxucfion of the internal roadway and landscaping along the roadway and We.st 78m Street. 16 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 15. All parcels shall be combined under a single Parcel Identification Number. 16. Ground water testing shall be done to determine high water table and springs located on the site. 17. That the sidewalk as shown on the plan be included as shown. 18. The applicant shall submit storm water and runoff computations to include the rain garden treatn~nt and storage capacities to the staff to ensure existing runoff rates are maintained and not incre, ased. 01 The applicant shall install and pay for a street light along West 78~ Stm~ The location of the light fixture shall be worked out with the en~oaneering staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried ummimou~ly with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR PREIJMINARY AND FINAL PIAkT APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO LOTS ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2~D ADDm0N; ~qD SQUARE l~T~ OFFI~ W~a~OUSE BU~.DING~ 2932 WATER TOWER PL~CF~ JEFF P~ER~IS AND STEINRR D~PMENT~ INC~ VENG~ DESIGN. Public Present: Name Address Peter Kordonowy Jeff Berends Jeff Podergois 810 Ramsey Avenue, Carver 3610 Count3, Road 101, Minnetonka 1620 West Farm Road Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council membem. Arboretmn Business Park is an office industrial park on 5 and 41. The ~ that's being proposed for sutxiivision is right on the north side of Water Tower Place and Highway 41. The subdivision's very straight forward. They're creating two lots. The smaller one is the one that's in for site plan review. It would be the easterly lot. In the future an office showroom space would be developed on Lot 1. They're doing preliminary and final. There are no public i ,mpmv~ required as part of this subdivision. Everything's in place. They're just putting in a new lot line. The site plan is for 20,000 square foot building. It's office warehouse space. It complies with the design standards for the development. The original building elevation, staff was ~ that they provide additional windows on the south elevation which is adjacent to Water Tower Place, and that they break up the building along it's length~ They've agreed to make changes to the front elevation by creating more windows as part of the enuan~. And then they're also going to put in some vertical elements on the side and that will help break up that length. Staff was reconm~nding approval of the sulxlivision and site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report The Planning Commission did recommend approval of both the subdivision and site plan. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there questions for staff at this time? 17 City Council Meeting - May 2'/, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Bob the only one that I had, not having a copy of the Planning Commission minutes, it's tough to, I don't want to be redundant but one of the things as I look at the color patterns, knowing that ~ thin~ are very all. cult to get true colors. It just seems more bland than what we've normally got coming in. There wasn't much color separation and I don't know whether that was talked about at the Plaxming Commission or noL Bob Generous: It wasn't a big issue there and I do have nmterials upstairs. I forgot to bring them down. They're not quite like that. They're more sand color. More natural color. The windows were the big element that we were concerned with. That's going to be it's big presence, They are doing extensive landscaping on the site so you don't get that green in with the dark block color. Councilman Peterson: And that's really what I was, you look at the color picture. It's all so brownish green that it just kind of disa~. Anyway, good thanks. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for sta~ If them is none, is the applicant here this evening? Are there any issues you'd like to bring up to the council at this time? Okay. Very good. Yes. Steve Lillehaug: Mr. Mayor, eonn~ I'm Steve Lillehaug with the Planning Commissiom I would like to touch on something also, ff I could. Mayor Furlong: Sum. Steve Lillehaug: We ,ad_~xl condition number 19, now it's 17 and it stated future expamion of Lot 2 is contingent upon proof of adequate truck circulation on the site. We did have extensive conversations regarding the access and to incorporale the site plan for the future Lot 2 as there is cross access agreements that will have to be made for that. At this point I want to just stress a little on this condition that it should not only be contil~ant upon fuum~ expansion of Lot 2, but it should also be contingent upon the inte~connection of State Highway 41 because the cul-de-sac will reconfigure the internal circulation of that site to development. So in essence it's oatting off the westerly access point so the Iruclcs will have to be muted back through, and just lookin~ on this sketch here. The trucks will be muted from Lot 1, around Lot 2 and ourently they'll be able to go through this cul-de-sac portion of the roadway, but when 41 is connected to Water Town Place, this access will be deleted so this truck uaffic will have to be romed back through this parking lot. So I would like to have you look at ,_drlin~ the contingency of when it's connected with Highway 41. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comnm~ts from staff? Kate Aanenson: We concur. We did talk to the applicant regarding not only the expansion but the types of trucks and the trips being generated. Also I think the Planning Commission thinking ahead if this use changed, we're on notice, every business has a diffcrem type of delivery and exporting so we would let the applicant be on notice that they need to be aware of how this operates and affects the next one. Comfy the underlying property owner in the lease agreements has to be aware of that too but we think that's i~t and we're happy to modify that condition. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do you have some suggested lsn~s_ge for us? Kate Aanenson: Well I think if you take 17 and just leave it as it is and then say the interconnection, future connection of Century Boulevard to 41. To State Highway 41. 18 City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 Bob Generous: Water Tower Place. Kate Aanenson: Water Tower Place, excuse me. Water Tower Place to State Highway 41. Councilman Lunclquist: So that would be condition 18 or? Kate Aanenson: I would just modify 17. Just say future expansion of Lot 2 is contingent upon adequate track circulation and the connection of Wal~' Tower Phce to ~t_e I-Ftghway 41. Mayor Furlong: And Kate have you had this discussion with the applicant and in this case it would probably be Steiner Development. Mayor Furlong: ...particularly concerned about that and they're in col~un'ence7 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comnm~ts at this point7 Councilman Lundquist: Steve would that language satisfy the Planning Commission's? Steve Lillehaug: That would be adequate, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time? If not, I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion on the application? Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to ask the questi~ With Steve's comment and concern, although he says this is fine. With regard to the size of mack and so forth, how did you ~_ddress it? I don't know if I caught that. Kate Aaneuson: The applicant, as part of the minutes. You don't have as detailed minutes on this. The applicant did explain the types of truck, the volume, the frequency and for an industrial type it's more showroom type. They don't have the same volume as a production, but that doesn't mean a production use couldn't go in in the future, which I think the Planning Commission again thinking ahead, anticipating it. Everybody's on notice that both properties have to work together in the furore. Councilman Labatt: So, are we talking the 52 trailers coming in here? Kate Aaneuson: No. Councilman Labatt: So there won't be any 18 wheelers? Kate Aanenson: Not with this project, no. Councilman Labatt: Okay. 19 City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: But if they should ha~ to sell the building... Kate Aanenson: Right. Bob Generous: That could be accomm_~l_~ted on the existing site plan. It's the expansion that becomes a problem. Kate Aanenson: Right. Right, and again this doesn't have the same size loading docks as some of the other buildings there so it's form function sort of thing but it's just good to keep everybody on notice that the other use could you know kind of exasperate what's going on so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good, thank you. Thank you Steve. Other discussions? Questions? I guess my only comments is I know the, Mr. Podergois is currently, his business currently is in Chanhassen and that this is due to a growth of his business so it's nice to see local businesses growing and expanding and choosing to stay here in Chanhasse~ so we appreciate that. If the~ is other discussion. No? Otherwise is there a motion, or series of motions? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve Site Plan g2003-4, prepared by Steiner Consm~on Services dated April 4, 03 with conditions 1 through 17, and 17 having the additional language at the end. And connection of Water Tower Place to I-rtghway 41. Mayor Furlong: If we can defer that. Do we need to do the other nmtion first? Councilman Lundquist: Did I skip one? Oh I dicC Councilman Labatt: Preliminary and final first. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so let's do the pre~ and final first. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the pre~ and final plat for Arboretum Business Park 5~ Addition subject to conditions 1 through 14. Mayor Furlong: As presented. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? If there is none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded t~ approve preliminary and final plat for Arboretnm Business Park Sa' Addition creating two lot~ as ahown on plans prepared by Sehoell & ~ Inc., dated April 4, 2003, ~ubject t~ the following 1. The development of the lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. City Council M~ting - May 27, 2003 1 The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event with a drainage area map. . The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the sewer crosses from one lot to another. 1 Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easermnt from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of constn~on and re-vegetation of the site. 0 Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building ~t. 7. Add City Detail Plato Nos. 1006, 2101, 3101, 5201, 5300 and 5214. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street ~vements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $47,616.2~ This remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis or paid at the time of final platting. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charge is $1,400 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for the wmm'main~ The hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. . Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not 10. On the plan sheets show the 20 foot private drainage and utility easement for the storm seWer. 11. On the utility plan: a) b) Add note "Any connection to existing utility s~ mast be core drilled." Revise CB 1 to CBMH 1. 12. On the grading plan: a) b) c) d) Revise MO1 to CBMH 1 Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Revise construction entrance note from 35 feet to 75 feet minimum. Revise the berm side slope to 3:1 maximnnx 13. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and ~ against the lots. 14. Full park and trail fees shah be collected per city ordinance for all lots in the Ad,crum Business Park 5m Addition at the time of final plat recording. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there another motion? Mr. Lundquist. 21 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Do you want me to say that whole thing again? Motion to approve the site plan 2003-4 as presented subject to conditions 1 through 17, with the addition of and connection of Water Tower Place to Highway 41 at the end of condition 17. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion7 If there is none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Site Plan t~v2003- 4, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services dated April 4, 2003, for a 20,000 square foot, one story office warehouse building on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Bugamis Park ~ Addition, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and supply the security required by it. , The applicant shall work with the city to revise the landscape plan so that it meets minimum requirements prior to fmal approval. . A 10 foot clear space must be ~ around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and tmnsf~ boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly locauxi and safely operated by firefighte~. ~ to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 1 The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commeacial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. , The building must comply with the Chanhassen Fh'e ~ Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. PUrsuant to Chanhassen l:rtre Dep~ Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. The builder must comply with the Chanhasson Fire Depmxnmnt/Fire Prevention Division regarding premi~ identification. Pt~uant to Chanhassen Fire Depaxtmeat/Fire Prevention Division Policy g29-1992. , The building must comply with Chanhassen trne Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pumuam to ~ Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy ~4-1991. , The hydrants as shown on the plan are acceptable. However, if. building is expanded in the future an additional fire hydrant may be required. The owner may want to comider adding the 8dditional hydrant at this tinm. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. J Submit to Fire Marshal type of business that will be moving into the building, i.e. office/ warehouse, storage and other information necessary. City Council Meeting- May 27, 2003 10. Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, other utility hardware and trash enclosures, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from the public view and with ~ identical to or su'ongly similar to building material or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter. 11. The building is required to have au automatic fire extinguishing system. 12. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 13. Three (3) accessible parking spaces must be provided. 14. Detailed occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete building plans are submitted. 15. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 16. Type H silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from ~ appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of consuuction and re-vegetation of the site. 17. Future expansion of Lot 2 is contingent upon proof of ~aeqn~te truck circulation on the site and the future connection of Water Tower Place to Tnmk Highway 41. All voted in favor and the motion carried mmalmously with a vote of S to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: I assume you want to take these sepan~ly Mr. Lundquist? Councilnmn Lundquist: Yes. A. FUTURE O~ANGE ORDER FQR ADDmQNAL WORK ON TH 101, 97-12-3. Councilman Lundquist: l(a). My concerns were first of all, Teresa thanks for the heads up and giving us some warning that this is coming. But my concerns are, as Fm reading through the list of change on punch list, I see a lot of redo and repair and items like that on the 57 conditions and then the comments about, the remarks about re-hydro seeding when it didn't come out right the first time. Realizing that this is a walk through and that you're cre~ng a punch list, my eoncxa-ns are that we just pay attention to what is truly our responsibility versus what is the con~s responsibility for repairing something that wasn't done ~ly the first time. Teresa Burgess: And that will be taken into account in negotiating the change order. Some of ~ items will appear on the change order as no cost. Some will not appear at all. However, residents separate the list out, I felt it was better for the council to see the full list of items that remain on the trail. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough. 23 City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Any other issues or questions? If there are none, is there a motion to approve? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: An y discussion on the motion? Heating none we'll call the question. Resolution g2003-50: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the furore change order for additional work on TH 101, City Project 97-12-3. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried ummimondy with a vote of 5 to 0. C, AWARD OF BID~ BLUFF CR~K RF~TORATIQN PR~_,CT~ SWMP 12-Y. Councilman Lundquist~ Concerns on this one. Todd, we're fimdin§ out of the CIP, storm and water fund. And 12 on the CIP plan is approved in Dece~n~r. ~s the $305,000 category, and although this is substantially less than that, my concern is that we've committed ! believe one or maybe more projects out of that fund this year and just for my own piece of mind, do you have a figure that we previously committed? Todd C~rhardc We have two projects underway right now. The one that you're approvi~ tonight and the last item that you approved about a month ago was the Lake Susan pond restoration and expansion. Both projects total about $245,000 and that leaves us with roughly about $50,000, $55,000 in miscellaneous projects that Lori will be approving that are tmdea~ath the contract language where the cotmcil would have to see it. Councilman Lundquist~ Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So we will be below the CIP budget ~ year. Mayor Furlong: Any other que~ous? If there is none, is the~ a motion? Councilman Labatt: Move approval Mayor Furlong: ~s there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Re~olufion 0'2003-51: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte m~conded to approve the award of bid for the Bluff Creek Restoration Project, SWMP 12-Y. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRKSENTATIONS. None. City Council Meeting - May 27, 2003 AD~TIVE PRE~ENTATION$. Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have to update, we did mee~ with the School District 276 as a part of our leader meeting there, Mayor Tom Furlong and myseff attended last Tuesday's meeting. They're looking at approximstely 118, if I rememher right 118-111 drop in enrollment in the school district next year so they will be looking at approximRtely $600,000 worth of budget cuts as a part of that enrollment decrease. And are moving ahead in doing environmental review on possibility of building a dome where the football field sits fight now. And looking at artificial turf and using that as more of a multi-propose facility faa indoor activities during our winter months. So other than that, everybody tallaut about waiting faa the legislataas to get done and see what the i ,m!~ct is. Mayor Furlong: Any questi~ faa Mr. Gerhardt If there are none, thank you. Councilman Peterson: How si~ificant is Kelley's award? Is that ~ big deal aa average deal or? Todd Gerhardt: I'd, average. A lot of cornnamities loolaxl at it from project to project type of arrangement with infiltration. What he did was an overall a~sn~nt of some of our infiltration and then will take part of that analysis and do it from a year to year basis. It was like investing the wheel for these people and they gave Kelley recognition faa that and he did'a great job. Councilrrmn Pettwson: So recogni~l. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other questions? Discussion? If there is none, and no other items to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman A yotte seconded to adjourn the meeting~ Ail voted In favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:15 Submitted by Todd C~rhardt Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHA,~EN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 2OO3 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS P~: Mayor ~url~, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman Petersom STAFF PRF_~ENT: Todd C_mrhard~ Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Bruce DeJong and Teresa Burgess PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Melissa Gilman Rich Slagle 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Vmager Planning Commission Mayor Furlong: There has been one item changed on our agenda this eveoing. Item number 3, both (a) and Co) will not be consi~ this evening. The applicant asked that we withdraw it from this evening's agenda so if anybody is here for that item 3, this is the I. alHaye Addition on Great Plains Boulevard. We will not be discussing that or having the public hearing this evening. PUBLIC ANNOUN(~EMENTS: None. CON~ENT AGENDA: approve the following recommendations: Councilman Labatt moved, Coundlm~n Lundquist seconded to consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's a. Approval of 2003 Cap~ Purchase: 1) Fire Department 2) Public Works 3) IS Department b. Approve Calling for Bond Sale, G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2003. c. Approval of Antenna Agreement with Carver County for Radio Tower. Approval of l~xnutes: - City Council Work Session Minutez dated April 28, 2003 - City Council Smmmxy and Verbatim Minutes dated April 28, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dat~ April 15, 2003 - Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim h~xnutes dated April 22, 2003 f. Approval of Change Order No. 7, Chanhassen La'brary Project g. Approval of Easement Settlement Agreement, TH 101 Trail Project, Roger Bongard. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 h. Approval of Agreement for Issuance of a Building Permit before Demolition of an Existing Home, 6480 Yosemite, James & ~ Dake. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of S to 0. VISITOR PRESE~A~ONS. FALUN DAFA WEEI~ MING JOHNSON. Joseph Zhou: Thank you Mayor, council membem. We are here to respectfully. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address please for the record. Joseph Zhou: Oh, my name is Joseph 7:hou. I'm ~y living...but my friend Ming Johnson, she lives nearby and she couldn't make it tonight. We are practicing together a Asian practice form called Falun Dafa and last year we were here, we respectfully received a request and acknowledged your proclamation of this week last year as the Falun Dafa Week. I would like t~ request that this week be proclaimed as a Falun Dafa Week also in the City of Chanhasse~ Falun Dafa is a health enhancing practice form. It consists of five exercises and it was brought to Minnesota in 1996 to 1998 and since then has benefited hundreds of people. Right now everybody's a volunteer. We maintain quite a few practice sites and Ming lives nearby. She's trying to spread it here also for anybody who is ~ in practice and benefit fi'om it. And over last year also there's a volunteer sponmr television show intred~ the exercises. If there's any question I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Are them any questions at this time? No? Okay. Well thank you. Are there any other visitor presentations this evening? If there are none, we'll close visitor pmseam~ons and move on. PUBLIC HF. ARING: CONSIDER RF~UF~T FOR AN OFF-SALE 3.2 MALT LIOUOR LICENSE AT CHANH~SEN CITGQ LOCATED AT 380 LAKE DRIVE EAST, KST~PtIAN HARK- Public Present: Name, Address Robert J. Savard Estephan Hark 8080 Mmrsh Drive ~ Citgo Co. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the only comments we have to ~rld on this item is that there were no negative co~ts received when we did the bac~und check. This is a public hearing. We request that the council open the public heating for citizen comments. Staff is recommending approval. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this time we will open the pubtic hearing for citizen co~. Is there anybody wishing to comment on this item? Okay. Please come forwaxd. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Bob Savard: My rome is Bob Savard. I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. I live right across the street from the Chanhassen Citgo and I am violently opposed to approval of any type of liquor, 3.2 or otherwise being sold at that facility. We have three liquor stores in town already. That's my opinion. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any other c..o~mmnts within the public hearing? If there are none we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Council, are them any questions for staff or others? Comments. Discussiom Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Gerhardt, do we have any other non-liquor stores in any other locations in Chanhassen, gas stations or otherwise that have a 3.2 license? Todd ~rhar~: I think the Holiday also has got. We do have several. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Ayotte: I do have a comment, and recognizing your concen~ I hope you're not violently opposed, but we have a pretty good program of enforcement and I know as long as guys like Councilman Labatt are on this council that this sort of thing, which will help i ,ml~ove posture of sales. Profitability. Tax base, so I see more positive than negative, but I am certain that if there was any hooligan activity that the way things have been going in our city as of late with public safety, that it will be dealt with. I don't see, I'm doing an endorsement, a strong endorsement because I see that we have to pay atl~nfion to businesses. 1ust want to make that comment. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions or comments? Councilman Labatt: Roger, in that, in our ordinance where we talk a lot about liquor licenses and we talked about the education and training that the clerks have to go through. The waitresses at the bars and establishments. Would thi~ also apply to the clerks at that gas station? Roger Knutson: They need a certain amount of education. I don't think it would be the same. I'd have to review the ordinance. They have to be educated on what the requirements are to sell. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, and maybe this is getting the car before the horse agaim But I just wonder iL and Fm not opposed to this. Don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that the establishment and the owners and the managers and the clerks are well aware of the eaforcement that we take our compliance checks here and I'm curious as to find out what the policies or the rides for this company are as far as ID'ing people. Similar to what several have for tobacco sales and, I me. an recently Fve been carded. Mayor Furlong: And you thanked them. Councilman Labatt: I did. You know there's some businesses in the community that card everybody. They don't care who you are or how old you look, I mean if you don't have gray hair or you're bald on the top, you're going to get carded. So I'm just curious to see ff we can have the applicant up to talk about what he's done and what his employees have done. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Mayor Purlong: Is the applicant here this evening? By any chance. Apparently the applicant isn't here. If they are, is the applicant here this evening? Is that you sir?. Estephan Hark: F ra Estephan Hark who's requesting the liquor license. Mayor Furlong: You are the gentleman requesting? Would you mind corrdng up and. ~stephan Hark: I don't have any questions about this, bm it if somebody wanted to ask rr~ a question. Mayor Furlong: I think ttmm is a question so if you don't mind. Roger Knutson: Mayor while he's coming up I would just point out that Section 10-33 of the Code says, educational process must be, applies to all sellers of alcoholic beverages. That would include this application so it does apply. Counc~Im~m Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So if you'd like to raise a question. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mr. Hart, what has your company done or your store for training of your employees? To meet the requiremmm under the Liquor License ordinance. Estephan Hark: Well when we get the liquor license we're going to train them how you know we did for like cigarettes or anything else. You know for an over or under age and their responsibility to check everybody's ID, even if they think it is 26 to 30 years old, check them even if they're a little older, and always make sure that you see that there's a picture and a picture ID that matches that person when they come in to buy the products. And always check ID when you sell liquor to any person that looks 30 years old and younger. And ID is the right ID for that person. And that's what we do for cigarettes and same thing for the beer. And we ask for the beer license because some of my customers they were saying that they, why we don't have a beer when other people you know, other in the neighborhood, they have to go and buy it somep~ else and they have to drive to other neighbochood to get it and that's why we ask for it. For the convenience for our neighbors so. Mayor Furlong: Are them any other questions for the applicant? Do you own other similar businesses? Estephan Hark: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. This is your only one? Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: I guess the way I interpret our ordinance is that training should be done before the liquor license is given so if we want to, I mean I could support approving this contingent upon receipt of the liquor license certificate and a license fee of $58.00 in .&lition to the completion and certification of the employees under the training. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Is that what the ordinance says Roar? Roger Knutson: It says no license or renewal shall be issued until after the applicant has an approved program instructing employees of the business premises in the sale of liquor. He needs an approved program. Councilman Peterson: So who reviews that from staff's perspective? Todd Gerhardt: Karen Engelhardt. Mayor Furlong: So the ordinance covers your issue, doesn't it Steve? Councilrmm Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So is there any other discussion? I mean clearly training's an issue and if there are problems, as Mr. Gerhardt had said, we're certainly going to deal with those. I know that we do work with the Carver County Sheriff to check for compliance throughout the year so for those reasons I think I'd be in favor of it. Is there a motion? Councilnmn Lundquist: Motion to approve the 3.2 malt liquor license for Chanh~sen Citgo at 380 Lake Drive Ease Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt: I just want to rrmke it upon staff's two contingencies, receipt of the liquor liability insurance certificate and the license fee. Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely. Councilman Labatt: And conforming to the ordinan~. Mayor Furlong: I think conforming to the ordinance is probably a givem Councilrr~n Labatt: But those two things... Mayor Nurlong: But those am the two thin~ listed here so okay. So approval of the license contingent upon receipt of the liquor liability insmmnce certificate and a license fee of $58.00. Okay? And a second. Mr. Ayotte. Any discussion on the motion? If there's none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the off-sale 3.2 beer license request from Clmnlmsseu Citgo Company at ~ Lake Drive F. au~ contingent upon receipt of the liquor liability insurance certificate and a license fee of $~8.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT~ BUDGET AMENDMENT~ AWARD OF BID. Public Present: Name Address Janet Carlson Deanna Bunkelman Sue Morgan 4141 Kings Road 4190 Red Oak Lane 4031 Kings Road Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Furlong, me~ of the City Council. The report that you have in your packet, item number 4 has been updated this evening with an ,~dditional proposal from Castle Roofing and Siding. This particular docmmnt holds the most ~ce this evening since it has the correct dollar amount of $25,000 on them. At least last fall that's the number that the City Council sent staff away saying that if you can do this job for $25,000 or under, you don't need to come back before the City Council. If it's over that amount, you do have to come back and present to the City Council again. Back to the original staff report, I worked with a variety of contractors, and I have over the past approximately 7 years. Round house is no doubt a unique project. It's a unique ~ and some contractor's shied away from it immediately because of it's unique nature. Small as, not very substantial profit margins when the contractor takes a look at it and thin~ about taking on a project. This time around we had, and again working with some of the folks from the neighborhood. We secured a quote, in fi~ct this winter, for the roofing from a gentleman out of Carver. Diethelm Construction for $'20,000 for demolition and reconstruction and then material costs of $6,300. Following up on that I spoke with three different painting and sand blasting companies. One of them came through with a price at $16,755.00. The xepreseotafive of that company lives here in Chanhassen. I met with him out there last Wednesday. With those numbers the total is $42,000. That inclnd_ed a pitched roof with demolition of the existing roof, a new pitched roof with cedax shakes, con~letely stripping the exterior of the stmcun~ down to the bare material, the wood. Finishing that with a clear coat and then that would conclude the proj~ Ms. Bunkelman and others from the neighborhood feared that at that cost the City Council may elect to demolish the ~ and so really on their own this weekend they worked with a contractor, Castle Roofing and Siding to come up with an alternative proposal which does a couple of things, but in general satisfied the requirements of the renovation of the ~. It lowers the pitch of the roof slightly to either a 4:12 or a 5:12 pitch. Changes the wood shake shingle to an asphalt shingle, and then it goes about the completing the exterior of the ~ in a different way. Instead of stripping off the lead based paint, you scrap it down to a smooth surface and then encapsulate it or paint it with a paint to complete the project. And I spoke with Mr. Schmidt today. He is on his way hexe to the city CouncU meetS. I would expect him around 7:30. He called me fi'om Minneapolis just before he left Their interest in the project is from a couple of angles. They like the character of the round house. They work on historic buildings. They feel the strucage is very unique. They'll be the first to admit that at $25,000 they're not going to make money in this project. They're simply going to pay their wages and pay the material corn, and hopefully preserve a building for the future of Chanhassen. Something of note, you have to give the neighborhood credit. They continue to work hard and dig deep into the history of the round house. There's an article that's in your packet entitled Lane Water Tank Builder Keeps Old Oaken Bucket up in the Air. This is from the Minneapolis Star, Sunday's Tribune from November 25~ of 1951 and Deanna found this article. The round house does have a unique history. Mr. Lane has a unique history in our community. I think the $25,000 price tag the project is worth conslxucfing. Especially after letting 7 years pass after a referendum in 1996 which included monies to City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 renovate the round house, complete the Phase ff of Roundhouse Park. I think this is a good oppommity for the city and the City Council to move forward with this project and complete this worlc in speaking with Ms. Bunkelman today, where do we go from here? The neighborhood group is excited about having this work done and then they would like to continue thei~ efforts to refurbish the inta4or of the building and put it into a usable state so they have m~rl~, that continued pledge to the City. Something I didn't note which is of interest in the proposal from Castle Roofing and Siding is, Deanna also negotiated to have the windows installed at the $2.5,000 level which would not be included in the other proposal. And the windows would be supplied by the neighborhood task force and that would really finish the exterior and the renovation of the project so you would have new windows, new siding and a new roof on the structure. So it's the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the quote from Castle Roofing and Siding to renovate the round house and to have that work con~leted yet this summer. I know Deanna and others from the neighborhood group are ~ this evening. I don't believe that Mr. Scbmidt is here as of yet Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Lundquist: I have a question. The motion that was made on October 20, 2002 has $25,000 limit and it has some things have to be done by Ju~e 1, 2003, which neither one of those have come so is there any further need to even talk about this if the bid is where it is? It's already covered by a previous motion. If I read this. If I read it ~y, that Councilman Ayotte moved and Councilman Boyle seconded the integration of windows is donated by the committee with completion in June. Oh it's completion by June 1, 2003. The cost of paint and roof exceeds the $25,000 that the item be brought back to the City Council for conside~fion. Mayor Furlong: So I think that's why we're here tonight Councilman Lundquist: Well there's nothing, they're saying it's less than 25, or is $25,000 and there's nothing saying it's not June 1, 2003 yet so. Todd Hoffman: The only reason we're here is because that quote came in today. Just today. Otherwise we would have signed it and moved forward with the project Councilman Lundquist: So that's my question. Do we have, what are we, isn't this still a binding motion that we've given them too or do we still have the authority to repeal this and do something else? Roger Knutson: It's a binding motion unless you unbind it, which you have the authority to do. Councilman Ayotte: ~s he a lawyer or what? Councilman Lundquist: So I guess that answers my question then. It can go for discussion them I just didn't want to have a long discussion if it was all moot anyway. Roger Knutson: No contract has been let and until the contract hss been let, you can take away that authority. But if you were to be silent tonight and do nothing, then the staff would have the authority to proceed. So it'd take a positive action by you to prevent it, unless you, conversation is, work completed by June I and that might not be practical. I don't know. June l's coming up pretty quick. Councilman Lundquist: It is. City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, are the~ other people that would like to speak to this? Ms. Bunkelman he~ this evening? Would you like to Address this? Sue Morgan: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgam I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is across the park from the round house, and I'm just curious as to why we are here. Why this issue is back on the. Councilman Ayotte: Ms. Morgan, could you pull the mic down towards you so. Sue Morgan: You bet Fmjust curious as to why we are l~m. Why this is back on the ~ again. Is there something that we need to do as a comnmn~ or neighbors to get this moving? Nothing's really happened with it. Todd Hoffman: No, the motion last October was that the council would see this again if the prices came in over $25,000. The product and prices that I secured was over that $25,(gg} so I was bringing it back to the council for their timber direction. Deanna Bunkelman took it upon herself this weekend to solicit a quote at the $25,000 level for a simil~ proj~ but a little different and so we're here tonight to discuss whether or not that, we should move forward with that proposal at $25,000. So by the motion of last October the council had stated that we should be back reviewing this again if it were to go over the $25,000 amount. In my pwtg~al or...that I solicited was over that. Sue Morgan: Okay. So are we at a situation now that if the panel doesn't disprove it that we can move forward? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Sue Morgan: Or will we he back again? Todd Hoffman: No. Sue Morgan: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else? Is there anybody else who wanted to make some comments on this this evening from residents? Okay, thank you. At this point, questions. Comments. Discussion. On this item. Councilman Peterson: Mayor I think that, my position really hasn't changed from when it was before us Last year. I just, I don't think that it's worth the inv~t. In what we want to reconsider it or not isn't necessarily my choice. I just don't think that the building has very ranch practical value and I think the ongoing operating costs are going to he substantially higher than any of our other buildings that we use for purposes like this. So I think that that being said, we've already spent a lot on it. If we're not going to be able to use it as a warming house, which I understand that we probably won't, in a time when we're trying to watch our dollars and cents, I just don't think this is a time to he spending ~_ddifional incrementally 25 additional thousand City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 dollars that is going to add proportionately to our ongoing operating costs. $o that's the position I had previously so I really haven't swayed from that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments? Councilman Ayotte: I cannot find fault with Councilman Peterson's thinking in terms of whether or not there is in a pure objective view value in the application of the building. But it goes to me as an I don't know. Where I see opportunity is that there's an inUiusic value to cxmtinually have the community engaged and from that stan~ irrespective of my personal view, I see some gains by the community getting involved with it's home. And I see it going beyond the round house. The round house in and of itseff may have a quantifiable value that I don't know exactly what it is, but I hope that the community that's involved with the round house stays involved with the round house and then goes after other activity and gets involved with other things so that it doesn't become the one thing that they wanted to accomp~ and then let go. I hope they continue to get involved with parks and rec and other community opportunities. Secondly, I was the one that made the motion for this and my motivation for it, beca~ I'm~..the facility, was to mitigate some rneas~ of risk to the community because of the lead base paint issues and the need to encapsulate. My only concern is to not move quickly so I'm hoping and when we bring this back for a vote, what I'm concerned about is ensuring that Mr. Scbmidt can move quickly because I don't want that lead base paint to be even on a nominal level a threat to people in that park. So whatever action is taken, I hope it's done ~ly. If 1 lost in what I would lilm to see happen to go forward, then I want it knocked down right away. I don't want that but I'm saying we need to deal with the risk issue and the risk issue is abatemenL Or ~on, encapsulation rather. So I'm hoping that Schmidt, if this goes forw~ goes forward with the intent of doing it quickly. Thank you sir. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor my comments. I think whether I agree or disagree with the staff's prolxmal...I think that we at lea~ owe it to the residents of the round house, that area to follow through on the promises of the previous council and let them take their $25,000 and give until June 1~t and give them a chance to get it done. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Go ahead. Councilman Iafl~att: Well going back to that October 28~' meeting, Craig and I were on the dissenting side of the motion. But I think like Mr. Lundquist said, it was 3-2 last October. The council gave these residents the scope to go out and find something. We set the limit at $25,000, not to exceexL They've gone out and done that and I'm not going to sit here and kick them in the gut and say no so I just, I don't like changing the rules. The cotmcil 3-2 decided last fall what to do and she has done it, so let's pat her on the back and approve this tonighL Mayor Furlong: In reading through the various copies of minutes of meetillgs and all the things that have happened, I guess as we sit here on the 12m of May, it's not June 1't yet. Maybe a question Mr. Hoffman. Based on your discussions with the conlxactor and with Deamna, do they have the windows available? Are they going to be able to get this done in the next 3 weeks? Todd Hoffman: No. The first thing to occur would be the abatement so they can start on that and then Deanna needs to secure the windows and then the roofi~ but the June 1't timeline is not a realistic timeline at this point, but by the conclusion of sun~n~ or, we didn't talk timeline today so I can't give you definitive on that but I know Mr. Schmidt was excited about the project. City Council MeeJSng - May 12, 2003 Wanted to get going and, is he here yet? He's on his way so maybe he could answer that question before the meeting tonight. Councilman Labatt: Maybe we can ask Ms. Bunkelman what she has in store for timeline to secure the windows, and maybe she has a commitment or something. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Please. Deanna Bunkelman: Hi. Deanna Bunkelman, 4191 Red Oak Lane. Some of the windows we ahvatdy have donated. With a local lumber company and whatever they don't donate we can get at cost. And we also have dollars that we've already raised so between all of that we pretty much have the windows. There's 13 windows and that's the undersized so even though it was done back in the you know late 1940's they were put up, they are the standard size so there's no concern. They were actually Anderson Windows that were in there, so if we wanted we could do the Renewal by Anderson and just have them replace the glass but we thought it would be better to actually get the whole window. Mayor Furlong: And that sounds great. I'm curious how much since the October council meeting, how much progress have you made in terms of raising donafi~ and either in kind or actual cash? Deanna Bunkelman: We've actually have done quite a bit of progre~. Aft~ the last council meeting we sent out 70 1 believe addifiomfl letters to local businesses and we also included quite a few businesses in Excelsior bec__ause we know that they are very into landmarks and restoring history. So we've actually had arum cash and also more in kind rant_v-rial. Mayor Furlong: Do you know. Deanna Bunkelman: Our local hardware companies and things ~ that. Mayor Furlong: So where are you now as we sit here today in terms of donated cash? Deanna Bunkelman: Oh donated cash, several thousand. We're in the $5,000 area. Most of it is really in kind material. Getting either materials donated or material at cost. We also have paint, you know so depending on working with a contracting firm we can get paint from a paint company in Excelsior so that' s the kind of smff. A lot of it is actually in ldn d matefiaL Andthen I already had mentioned to you about the Scouts. We're planning to have two scouta that would be getting their Eagle to do the benches inside for the warming house and then also do the landscaping. So really for their projects we can help ~ but when you're going for your Eagle you're supposed to go out and raise money and do all of that, as much as you cam Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions? Councilman Ayotte: The contractor just walked in so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other questions for Deainna at thi~ time? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: No? Thank you. Is a representative from Castle Roofing here this evening? 10 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Greg $chmidt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Greg Schmidt: Good evening. My name is Greg Schmic~ I'm with Castle Roofing and Siding in Minneapolis. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there questions? Councilnmn Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Mr. Schmidt, you know you came in at the not to exceed of $25,000. Thank you very much. It's obviously something as Mr. Hoffrrum stated that you're not going to make a whole lot of money on it so the first question is will you do it for free? The biggest concern I have is schedule wise, the encapsulate of the lead base paint. Getting that done pretty quicL Do you think you could turn that quick for us? Greg Schmidt; Yes, at this point of the year, yes we can. And our goal would be to get ahead of the school's letting out, is that kind of what you're getting at for kids in the park and public spaces? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Greg Schmidt: Yes. We would of course also protect the site and make sure that as much as possible we keep people away and try to get that preliminary part &me so that the public is not exposed to that, for obvious reasons. Councilman Peterson: What's your current time line for getting your whole pc~tion of the proj~ done? Greg Schmidt: This would be a 30 day project, assuming that the windows are on arder and can be brought in and installed during the siding phase. I think Deanna has a handle on that so I'm confident of that. Windows take about, at least Marvin is about 2 weeks out for windows so I would assume that any other supplier would be equally as responsive. And it's a 30 day project. Mayor Furlong: I'm curious about the two different methods I think that have been proposed here in terms of dealing with the lead base paint, from a safety issue. And cxaxect me if I'm wrong Mr. Hoffman. The contractor that you were speaking with would have renmved or stripped the wood as opposed to encapsulating it or scraping and painting over it, is that, or is that an unfair description of encapsulation? Greg Schmidt: We would primarily use carbide tip scrapen to remove the paint Most of the paint you can remove with your fiugenmils, and so we don't think it will be a difficult process. There is the possibility of some sanding but it would be minimal and we would certainly scrap the side walls with these carbide scrapers and do it, fall down to tarps where it'd be collected and hagged and disposed of properly. Mayor Furlong: So is all the paint, the existing paint be removed or? Greg Schmidt: It'd be down to the bare wood, although redwood is sof[ and you don't want to gouge it so we would get it down as far as practical with the technique we have. Stripping is also an option but then we get into chemicals and we feel that it's safer in general to hand scrape. 11 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Mayor Furlong: I guess I'm concerned about down the road, once we paint iL It will have to, you know, are we just by not going forward with the removal now, are we creating an issue where down the road we may have another problem or there may be exposure of lead paint remaining on the building now? Cyreg Schmidt: No. The mistake people have rrmde~ in the past is using a poor quality paint and so it does not adhere to the substrate and it peels up and we would obviously use the best paint we could buy. The Al00 from Sherwin Williams has been mentioned as an option. Something from Benjamin Moore in a similar type of paint. But anytime we cover a well prepared wood sm~ace it should be good for 20 years I'm guessing. 15 to 20 years. And it may have to be mpainted but it ce~dnly is not going to be pulling the lead paint off with iL We believe we can get a nice clean surface to adhere the paint to. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the contractor? Thank you. Councilman Labatt: I'm sorry. I-F_tstory of doing this. Is this your tenth job? Hun~ job? Removing, scraping lead base paint and setting up the ~ tm'ps to protect the environment around there? Crreg Schmidt: In the 35 years that Castle's been in business in one form or anothm', it was originally the owner's father's company and then so it's, since the 60's. I don't have an exact count of the number of projects we've done lilm this, but this is a typical proje~ for us in terms of projecting the job site and for handling hazardous waste because as you know siding comtmnies, we're dealing with asbestos all the time, ~y in South lV~inneaI~lis ~ some of the older homes around town and so it's a practice that we know well and we do it every day. Councilman Labatt: Okay. C~ood, thank you. Greg Schmidt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Corrmaents? Anything else? From my standpoint I think my concern is, I'm wondering when this is going to get done, ff ever. Even if we continue to go forward here with the dollars this evening. We had since October, this is coming in, there was a motion in October to get things done by June 1 '~ and here we are middle of May and over the weekend we get a proposal that meets the eriterim And my sense is that them seems to be deadlines made and stretched constantly. It's been since the, I think it was mellti~311ed the '96 referendum that we've been working on this. I'm just, I support the efforts that the neighbors and residents have put in and I'm just concerned about their ability to get it done. And not because of their lack of desire or trying, but it just seems to, it just doesn't seem to get done. And so how much more do we keep going and stretching it out. We've heard tonight that they're not going to meet the June 1~t deaidline so by resolution, you know are we going to see this again in a month or are we going to go ahead and extend the deadline again with the expectation that it will be met? And we're still dealing with issues that have been discussed by prior councils in terms of utility and whether this is the right purpose or not so I'm concerned that we continue to extend and limp along without getting to where we want to be, and that's done and good amenity to a park_ Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: With regards to, and I really don't recollect, but was it the staff's requirement to secure the quote for what we've received or was it the community organization's responsibility to secure the quote? 12 City Council Meeting- May 12, 2003 Todd Hofftnan: Staff's requirement as far as my understanding. Councilman Ayotte: So when did we, did we send out requests for propose? Todd Hoffman: No, through a quote process I simply contacted contractors via phone starting in January. Councilman Ayotte: So we start contacting vendors in the January timeframe. And we got a vendor to respond to the quote. Were they responsive? Todd Hoffman: No. Well some were, some weren't. Otherwi~ it wouldn't take me this long to get the proposal back. And I also worked with Deanna. Deanna was actually the person who contacted the roofer, Mr. Diethelm. From what the contractor's saying tonight, a 30 day turnaround and he wants to get started before school's out and get the painting encapsulated, that sounds like a good schedule to me. Councilman Ayotte: That's a very aggressive schedule but if there is, and what the mayor is saying, if there is a hiccup that's introduced with material that's to be provided and it's not theav., that's my concern so if we could have some mechanism to assure schedule by having an inventory of the material that's available, and then the presentation of a performance schedule by the contractor based on what material is available with, I think it's going to have to be an extended date. You know like the end of June, but with encapsulation of the building sooner than that, then I would feel comfortable moving forward. I do want to get it done. I am worried about risk to the community. I think a week or two may be needed but I think in order for the contractor to sign up for that we have to have some recognition that the material that is needed, that he needs, is in place. So how do we7 Mayor Furlong: Well, I guess in that regard I wouldn't want to see a contract let for anything, any repairs, even painting or encapsulation until we know that everything's ready. I mean there's. Councilman Ayotte: I think that's my poinL That we have. Mayor Furlong: There's no way I'd go forward on that. Because otherwise we're just going to he back here at some point. Councilman Ayotte: That's what I'm, yeah. Ye. ah~ So if we could somehow make sure that the building material is well understood and within reason of meeting the suspense date and the suspense date being something like middle of June, with anticipated start date of whatever, them Mayor Furlong: Well. Councilman Lundquist: But it defeats your purpose of getting it done before the school I mean I Councilman Peterson: All we're talking about is really getting the windows, right? Councilman Ayotte: Well, I don't know. That's my point. I don't know if there's something. Councilman Peterson: My sense is, and we can certainly ask the contractor but that he shouldn't start, what we're saying is he shouldn't start until we have the windows locked and loaded with 13 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 the funds to purchase them or in kind. So that seems to be the leverage point here, the fulcrum. And we certainly can ask the contractor but I think that's certainly is a good compromise. Get the stuff, and Deanna eloquently danced that she believes that she's got the money to do it but what's let's order them and have the funds available. Councilman Labatt: Let's ask Mr. Schmidt the question~ Mayor Furlong: That's fine, yep. C.n'eg Schmidt: Did someone ask to see me? Councilman Peterson: More a question for Deanna... Mayor Furlong: Yeah, maybe both of them_ Councilman Labatt: When are you prepared to start? Greg Schmidt: I can tell you that tomorrow but I believe we could stm~ we could get some people out here yet this week. I'm quite sure we could get a prep crew out here thin week. Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the issues too is, you've had conversations with Deanna and, you know. Cn'eg Schmidt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Let's get some answers here rather than you know we think and we can. V~ten are, who's going to order the windows and when will they be ordered and when they know that they're ordered because our concern is if we start doing some work but then for some reason there's a delay on the building materials that was mentioned that you're expecting, that this continues to be extended. So will you be ordering the windows7 Or will ~ be. Cvreg Schmidt: Deanna will be through Lyman, Deanna will be c~dering those, that's my understanding and I can't ima~ne they'd be out nmm than 2 weeks and that is not a problem for us because the whole project can proceed. That is not going to hold us up at all. If the windows are available in the next 2 to 3 weeks, that would be fine. As far as our timing. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Crreg $clamidt: So I don't see it as a problem at all. Even if they're 2 weeks out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Deanmt. Thank you. With regard to the windows. You know can you give, can those be on order within a couple week time period7 Deanna Bunkelman: If this is approved tonight, I will contact my contact at Lyman tomorrow and get them on order. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Deanna Bunkelman: So however long that takes. You know Greg is saying 2 weeks, but I have no idea. I don't order windows so. 14 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for her? Deamnm Councilman Peterson: Funding, earlier you weren't for certain that the funding was there to purchase the windows so now you are? Deanna Bunkelman: Yes. Yes. We have no issues with the windows because like I said, Lyman is going to supply materials and depending on what materials we ask for. For this project though Greg has that all under control except for the windows. We said we would supply the windows. So I'm either going to get some of them donated, some of that at cost, or we're going to use some of the money that we've already raise& Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Is there permit fees? Do they need to get a permit? Roger Knutson: You'll note that the contract provides that it includes getting the permits. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, where would the council like to go? Councilman Ayotte: I would like to move that we approve and give a go forward to staff to secure the services of Castle Roofing and Siding to initi'"'"'~e the project this week for the target completion date of 15 June. And that rd like to further ask that encapsulation be, removal of the lead base paint and encapsulation be the first task at hand. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? I guess my question is, we've talked about securing the building materials prior to the conuact being let. So you know, and we've got a commitment that that should not be an issue. With regard to the windows but I think. Councilman Ayotte: Let's call that a friendly amendment. Mayor Furlong: That would be. purchase agreement. Mayor Furlong: Contingem that. Councilman Peterson: And the obligation for payment is not city related. Right? Councilman Ayotte: Correct Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the windows need to be ordered without city funds and sufficient and confirm that they are sufficient by the contractor to con~lete their project. And that this would be completed by June 15~, all the work. Is there any other disctmsion? If there's none we'll call the question. 15 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Councilnmn Ayotte moved, Conncilman Lnbntt seconded that the City Conneil direct stnff to secure the services of Castle Roofing nnd Siding to initinte the round honse renovation project in Roundhouse Park, contingent on eonfirmlllion thnt the windows are ordered without city funds, with n completion ante of June 15, 2003. Pnrther nsking thnt removal nnd encnpsnlntion of the lend bnse paint be the first task _completed. All voted in fnvor, except Councilman Peterson nnd Mnyor Fnrlong who opposed, nmi the motion cnrried with a vote of 3 to 2. NAMUNG OF ~ PAItK IN FRONT OF CITY HALL; LOCATED AT ~ CORNER OF Wg-gT 78TM STREET AND ~ BOIe~EVARD. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. The item which you have in your packet is a misprint from a previous park naming back in 1999, so you can ignore the item number 5 memorandum with the exception, do not ignore the manager's comments which is on the bottom, initialed by Todd Gerhardt, 5-7-03. The new menxa'andum which I have a_dditiomfl copies hcre, if you'd like to pass those around, is dated May 6m which I distributed to the Ci~ Council. It's a recommendation concerning the naming of the park located in front of City Hall, and adjacent to the new library that's being ee~mmed. On Tuesday, April 22~ the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission disenssed the naming of that new park being ~ in front of City Hall. The reason for the necessity to go ahead with the naming is the park sign was approved as a part of the eonuacc The verbatim minutes detailing the commission's discussion from that evening are attached. It was stows recommendation that the park be named City Center Park. Two residents and two me~ of the lihrm'y stuff suggested that the park be named some~ing different. Offering such suggestions as Poet ParL Freedom Park, Authors Park and Library Park. After considerable discussion the Park and Recre.~on Commission made the following recordation. It was moved by Commissioner Stolar and seconded by Commissioner Atidns that the City Council, that they recomme~ the City Council name the park adjacent to the new library City Center Park, Library Commons and on the sign it lists three different lines. At the top idenfif34ng the City of Chanhassen. The name City Center ParL with a sub name Library Commons. All voted in favor except Commissioner O'Shea who opposed and the motion was carried by a 6 to 1 vote. And then please note the manager's eonunents again on the blue cover on item number 5. I believe there is a mpresea~ve from the Park and Recreation Commission here this evening if you'd like to ask questions of the commi~iom Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff at this time? If not, is them someone with the Park and Rec Commission? Oh, good evening. If you'd like to ~_ddress the council or say anything. Tom Kelly: Tom Kelly, 91... Apologize for the attire. I was at Little League tonight. Just how we came up with that name. There was a definite division in the commission last month. Some people liked City Center park. Some liked Library Commons so we found this as a commou ground. The idea behind the City Center Park, Library Commons was to give the overall area here a city center name with the library commons being he~ or city center ballfields being to the north of city hall so that was the idea behind having City Center Park and then giving it a sub- name of Library Commons. To kind of find some common ground on the commissiam Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay. Discussion. Council Councilman Peterson: My first reaction, usually when I d~ naming things like this, anything marketing related. When I read it I thought it was three separate names. I thought Chanhassen, we get a call at Chanhassen Park, that must have been a typo. Then I went well City Center ParL 16 City Council Meeting- May 12, 2003 I thought it was three choices here so having them all three together doesn't sing to me. So I'm leaning towards staff recordation of City Center Park, in all due respect to the Park Commissioners efforts to consolidate their perspective, it's confusing to me. Councilman Labatt: Not to waste any time...have pressing things tonight but I would ditto Mr. Peterson's comments and go with City Center Park. Mayor Furlong: Fair enougl~ Councilman Lundquist: FI1 make it an easy three. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there any other discussion? If not is the~ a motiom Councilman Labatt: Move that we recommend that we approve the name of City Cenmr Park in the open space. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Pete~som Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll call the quesfiom Councilman Labatt moved, Coundlnmn Peterson seconded that the City Council name the park in front of City ~ located on the corner of West '/8~ ~ and Market Boulevard City Center Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried nnRnlmnusly with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: We received two applications for open seats on the Planning Commission and the council was able to interview one of the candidates last Monday and I think Councilman Peterson and Ayotte interviewed the other candidate inbetween last Monday and now so I guess I would, let's open it up for discussion. I'm curious as to. Councilman Petevson: Mr. Mayor I think simply put, we found Mr. Papke to be an exception candidate for considoration so I think on behalf of Bob and myseff we're recommending approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Councilman Labatt: I think Kurt has applied before. I remember intervie~ him. Councilman Peterson: About 6 years ago. Councilman Labatt: Yealz No, not that long. Councilman Peterson: Pretty close. At least that's what he shared with us this evening. Councilman Labatt: Maybe 5 because I was on the council when he. Councilman Peterson: Okay 5. 17 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: Since when did he start being so picky. He was never picky before. Councilman Labatt: I remember him. I remember this gentleman... Councilman Ayotte: Yeah and they card you too. Councilman Labatt: I would ditto that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think also the other c, an~, Bethany Tjomhom was interviewed by council, most of the council members and certainly she seemed well qualified as well. Would be a good addition so with that is there a motion regarding the appointments? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve both candi~ as recorded by. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved~ Councilman Lalmtt seconded to appoint Kurt Papke and Bethany Tjornhom to the Planning Colnmi~lon- 21k[l VOIINt in gllvor alld the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Labatt: We all got our par~_d¢ applications in the mail. Get them in early. We don't want to have a problem like we had last year. Councilman Peterson: Can't we make these last 7 chapters of the Cc~ tonight? Mayor Furlong: I think we should just deal with it right now tonight. Any other discussions? ADMINISTRATIVE PRF.~ENTATION~. Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have is that we will not be meeting on the 22~ for the EDA, We'll try to cover that at our 27~ City Council meeting to accommodate everybody's schedule. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other items? Todd Gerhardt: I did get the TIF stipulation agreement. We're reviewing that. I'll probably go into Executive Session at our next council meeting and go through that and hopefully get it approved at your next council meeting. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions for staff7 Any items? Okay, seeing none. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: Any items under the correspond? If there are none, is there a motion to adjourrl. 18 City Council Meeting - May 12, 2003 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION RF~ULAR M~.ET~G MAY 20, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Steve IAllehaug, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Kurt Papke, and Bethany Tjomhorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director;, Bob Cnmemus, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-$aff, Senior Planne~, Matt Saam, Assistant Ci~ Engineer;, Mak Sweidan, Engineer, Angie Auseth, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Bob Mastad Jason Osb~rg Kathy & ~ ~~ Andy Kayati Tim Moore Al Gomez Linda Peterson Doug Schroeder Jon Turner Sue Surer Carl F. McNutt Ella & Herb Kask Scott Pharis Brian Carney Mary Frey Carrie Krych Chris & Leslie Erickson Dennis & Ann Baker Eric Theship Rosales Tom Cook C. Hicks K.FL Brackelsberg Troy Pappas Bill Jensen Maria Strand Lois Degler Kent Ludford Brian Gnmdhofer Deb Lloyd Ann Nasset Mike Solheim Safl~re-Berquist Tollefson Development Inc. Kestrel Desi~ Group 7720 Frrmti~ Trail 8715 Valley View Place 1812 Valley Ridge Trail 8748 Valley View Place 8743 Valley View Place 2040 West 65th Street, Excelsior 1361 Sunridge Court 2051 Boulder Road 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard 185 Pleasant View Road 115 Pleasant View Road 1815 Valley Ridge Trail 6566 Shadow Lane 1822 Valley Ridge Trail No. 2127 Boulder Road 1831 Sunridg~ Court 9219 Lake Riley Boulevard 9201 Audubon Road 2037 Bouldex Road 1941 Crestview Circle 1961 Crestview Circle 196 ! Crestview Circle Town & Counu'y Homes 8631 Valley View Court 1630 Lyman Boulevard 8615 Valley View Court 185 Pleasant View Road 7302 Laredo IRS/1780 I~xlls~ Lane Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 CONSIDER A REOUKST FOR A LAKESHORE~ SIDE YARD~ LOT AREA~ LOT WIDTH~ AND HARD SURFACE CO--GE VARIANC~ ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILy~ LOCATED AT 9221 LAKE RILi~IY BOULEVARD~ TOM AND SUE SUTER. Angle Auseth presented the staff report on this iten~ Sacchet: Questions from staff. Liilehaug: I can start. Since the existing garage is at 2.4 feet now, does that mean that they are also extending the 11.5 foot portion of the house the 2.4 foot then? Auseth: The 2.4 is going to go back to 3.3, and then the 11 ½ will go to 3.3 as well. And then it Lillehaug: So they're revising the garage? Au,seth: Just the eaves on the garage. Sacchet: Any other questions fi'om staff? Slagle: I just want a clarifi~~ The i ,mpm'vious ~ that we were working with before was what, for my. Auseth: It's 35 percent Slagle: No, what was it before? The last meeting we were at Auseth: 34.9 percent. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: The proposal was? Auseth: It's 6 square feet. Sacchet: It was over 40 last time. Auseth: Oh I'm sorry. The proposed? Sacchet: Yes. Auseth: I'm sorry, it was 41 percent. I apologize. Claybaugh: I have a couple questions here. Let's see here. You identify that we're me41~ring to the eaves for the setlx~ks. Has the extent of the eaves, whether it was I or 2 foot overhang, has that been changed? Auseth: On the garage. Claybaugh: Has the actual footprint any closer? Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 Auseth: The footprint is 1 foot in from the eaves. Claybaugh: Okay. Is that what it ~y is and what is proposed for that setback? What I'm trying to determine is if the eaves have been shc~n up but the footprint is still closer to the property line. Auseth: We did not address the eaves last time so. Claybaugh: I'll address that to the applicant. Secondly there was a handout here for us when we got to the meeting here from Kestrel Deign and I'm not sure ff I should addre~ this to the applicant but I'll give it a try here with staff. It says that the, due to the hard surface intensification above the city standard of 25 tmrcent, we'd identified that they were 35 percent over the hard surface coverage and I was just trying to correlate that 25 percent figure on this report wondering, the applicant as well. ~ that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Bruce, any questions? Feik: Yes I have a few. Page 7. The top. F'mt line in the first paragraph you talk about thh is enhancing the structure. That's really sort of a misnomer. It's really a new ~ is it not? Auseth: Yes but the garage is existing so it' s an existing lot of record. Feik: But what we are, the proposal envisions rahing the entire existing residence, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Feik: Also on page 7, the second paragraph. The second w last line we talk about the applicam is propasing to decrease the east side yard setback. Do you really mean, are we, let's see. Decreasing the variance or are we increasing the setback? Auseth: It was at 3 foot 3 currently. Feik: And it will be going to 5. Auseth: It will be going to. Feik: So we'd be decreeing the variance. Auseth: Decreasing the va_dance. Feik: Or increasing the setback Auseth: Decreasing the variance. As well as the se~ck. Feik: Increasing the setback Auseth: Oh sorry, yes. Sorry. Sacchet: The good thing. It's getting better. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: And then we spoke today. Would you please summarize, ff you would, our brief conversation regarding the eaves and the setback req~ and how the eaves can and cannot project in that setback please. Auseth: Sure. When the house was built, the eaves could, even though there's a variance, the eaves could encroach 2 ½ feet into the setback. ~y as the code res_ds, Section 20-908, if there is a variance granted eaves cannot encroach into the setbac~ which is why we are measuring all setbac~ from the eaves rather than the footprint. Feik Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? Papke: Yeah I have a question about the hard cover. We're down to 3:5 p~mt Do we care where on the lot that hard cover is? It seems as if by moving the house back away from the lake, the pervious area is now closer to the lake~ Does this make any difference in our consideration? Auseth: It's beneficial to have the i~ous surface away from the lake. Papke: Okay. So from that aspect, beyond just the number, we also are i .reproving where the impervious surface is located? Auseth: Correct Aanenson: That's where the staff came down for the favorable recommendation. Papke: Right. Sacchet: Any questions Bethany? lust to be real clear. It appears to me like tbe applicant's addressed all the concerns we had when this came in front of us and actually i .m!m~ved all, and dramatically i .mpwved the i~ous surface and i .mlwoved also the other ones. Is that a reasonable statement to make? Auseth: That's correct Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions. Thank you. If the applicant wants to address the commission, make a presentation, please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Please speak into the microphone. Tom Suter: Yeah, Tom Suter and I've got a couple other people hem, if you could come up. Peter MacDonagh and Dale Mulfiuger. Dale was the architect on the project. Peter's the environmental design landscape architect that's on the project that we've since added to the team. At the last meeting this handout that I provided tried to summarize the key issues that the committee brought up at the last meeting from a summary pers~ve and let me try to address those. Hard cover. We reduced the hard cover from the prior requea of 41 percent to a 35 percent level which is what the existing hard cover is. We changed the, and the way we did that is we changed the patio area nearest the lake to become a pervious surface. Now we're going to address some other matefi~ but Peter will address that. We changed the walkway to the lake making it impervious with possible exception of the stair steps. We do that for safety reasons so we don't have some safety issues there, and we're changing the walkway from the garage to be a Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 partial pervious surface as welL On the lakescaping and landscaping, which was also brought up at the meeting, we have since submitted a letter as part of the packet which you have which ~ses our interest and desire to deal with a lakzscaping strategy and to develop both the in water as well as out of water buffer zones to address thaL We've since then also retained Peter and the Kestrel Design Group which has extensive ext~dence with wetland, lake and restoration projects and design characteristics. We've dealt with the tree issue which was raised next to us to the southwest, which was on the Hamilton side. We've had 3 separate arborists show up. Give us opinions on thaL We've also solicited input from Sill, the city ~ and we've come away with a final conclusion at this point is that seventl of the trees need to be ~ and lmmed. They'll all be retained at this point until we stake the yard, and stake the house at which point between Jim and Laura Hami]~ and Sue and myseff will come up with a proper determination of how to deal with iL At the time we met with Jill, because of the nature of the lzees, the type of trees, Jill's recommendation was actually that they could be probably removed. They're not a good tree. We could replace it with something of bett~ quality but since we don't own those trees, that would not be a proper recommendation since that was not written into the report Setbacks and overhangs, all the current plans cuxrently identify the overhangs and their impact on setbacks because of the request. Ctment setbacks have been changed and it's referenced in the staff report. We do have to go back beyond the currem garage structure for mmsifional area for support and some other interior characteristics which Dale can cetlainly address, and ttm~ we bring it in off of that previous setback to i ,n,~prove the intetmiT~mttion on the southwest side. We've also brought in frc~ the east side, from the Baker side and brought it in and tried to minimize the impact over there. The overall height of the sqxucture which wasn't brought up at the meeting but needed to be addresse~ ~Rer doing the ill--ohS Dale's group came back and our feedback right now is that we're at 29 feet 6 inches, meammxl the way the city wants it meas~ against I think the Stalldallt or the ixlaximum's 35 feel So we're well within thaL The other side note that we want to make here, which I think is i ,mportant to u~flerstand is that our desire is to not just take the home, demolish it and turn it into the landfill Fill material. My wife along with others are working on a demolition strategy that is incorlXXafing support from the Green Institute, from a recycling perspective so that we can recycle and reclaim as much of the current structure as we can so that it's just not going in and being trmshed in a landfill, and we're quite a ways down the path on th~ At that point I'd like Peter to address his handout that he put together for us which starts to address the landscape, the ~ping issues at a high level and some of the things that we've at least in concept have agreed to. Since we've only been in a contractual relationship with Peter's organization for about 2 weeks now, we don't have that much finely detailed but we can talk about the concepts that we plan on using. Peter MacDonagh: Peter MacDonagh. Hello commissioners. With the Kes~l Design Group. Adjunct faculty of the University of Minnesota Iamdscape Architecture Depaxtmc-nt. The four issues that we addressed in terms of the bard surface and trying to mitigate those was using infiltration, evaporation, detention and retention of the runoff. The first item that we looked at was mitigating some of the roof runoff and we plan to harvest some of that with cisterns. As it says here in the report, that would be incorporated into the architecture, so it would be screened and that would be used for gardening purposes. Rain gazdens, so downspouts. Some of the water that will be harvested from there will be in rain gardens. Rain gardens aze very shallow mention basins for lack of a better term but they're only about 6 inches tall and they typically dissipate the water within 72 hours so it's not a mosq~ breeding deal. Then the access path to Lake Riley. I have to mention thaL What we have in mind is an organic substrate. Something that again has a high infiltration rate. Higher than tuff grass and as Tom mentioned, the steps for safety pm-poses would need to be a hard surface. And then the other two, or otlmr three items, side yard, sidewalks and back yard patio. We are currently investigating Ecostone which is a pervious pavement is another word for it. Ecostone just happens to be a proprietary product and it will Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 mitigate it's runoff for about 70 ~t of storm events. It's a high~ infiltration rate than turf grass. It will mitigate. It will take a 1 inch to 2 ~4 inch rain event. That's a long term numbs. In the front end it's going to take a lot more than that before the bed gets saturated. So it's outwardly appearing as a hard surface but it's serf mitigate. And the other imms that we're going to be looking at is lake~aping. Currently there is no buffer on the lake, and we are planning, the owner is planning to put buffer where none currently exists, and incorporate into the buffer, we also will have some of these rain gardens. They'H be au ~ landscape solution. Not a wild land look but more of a biomotphic garden look. And so as I said, that will be above the ordinary high water level so it will mitigate more runoff from the lot. And then the last part is that the owner is willing to have the house function as a densmstmfion site for some of these techniques and as a person who promotes these in our work, this is au unusual thing and we are very glad that he's willing to do that, and that's an oppoxmnity I think for Chanhassen to use it Or in general rather. And then the other item is some of ~ infiltration measures that I've outlined. Any questions? Papke: Could you define biomorphic for me? Excuse my ignorance. Peter MacDonagh: It's organic shapes rather thau a Euclidian geometry. How'd I do? Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Chybaugh: Yeah, I just wanted to address something in the ~ here. Let's see here, with the second paragraph dowm It says surface intensification above the city standard of 25 percent and I was just trying to correlate those figmv~. I had 35 percent in the staff report that we were over. Tom Sutec. My undemanding is that the city standard is 25 percent and since we knew that going in that we were over the current, we're 10 percent over I think on the existing stmcau~, we felt that it was i .mlggtaut that we went maybe beyond what would be ordinary and customa~ from the landscaping perspective. That's why we brought Kestrel Group in to help deal with the fact that we are over 25 percent limit. Did that? Claybaugh: Yes. The cismms, are those above grande or below grade? Peter MacDonagh: They're above grade. Claybaugh: They're above grade. What type application are you consi~ for that? Peter MacDonagh: The most common retrofit is a rain barrel but these, they're something like that. They have a spigot on them and gravity flow. Sacchet: Any other questions? Anything else from the applicant? Actually I have a question~ Now just to be clear, you pointed out that the partially pervious/i~ous surface they were actually calculated as i~ous for the calculations. Or how did that work? Really mom a question for staff but I think you irt.re, lied that even though they were partially pervious, they were still calculated inw the figures for i~ous? Correct? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: And then the other that's more au architect question. You're actually changing the roof of the garage or you're just taking off the part of the eave or what am you going to do there? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Dale Mulfinger: I'm Dale Mulfinger with Saul Architects and also the Unive~ty of Minnesota. What we're trying to do is ~ a look of a story and a half house as viewed from the street and a one story with walkout as viewed from the lake side. So to the ement that the house rises, if you will, 3 floors. By that I mean basement, first and Second, that only occurs if you will in the middle of the house and neither from the lake nor from the street will you see the hi~ portion of the roof. Getting back to your specific question regarding the garage. Yes, we're taking the low roof off the gacage and we're putting a habitable roof, by that I mean the equivalency of a storage truss, over the garage so it' s living in the roof. It's not literally a one full floor. Sacchet: So he gets a new roof and you make it more fimctional in the process. Dale Mulfinger: Yes. Sacchet: That answers the question. Tom Suter. And then shrinking the overhang... Sacchet: To bring it in, got it. Clayhaugh: As long as we're addressing arcM~ details. Coming back to the overhang. As staff stated previously, I just wanted to clarify as we're measuring to the eaves previously, that wasn't the requirement I'm curious as to where the footprint on the existing building is in relation to the lot line. How is that changing? Tom Suter: The garage is staying where it's at because of the foundsfiom Claybaugh: Right, I understand that. Tom Sum': We're salvaging that. In the previous report it was written that it was a 4.4 foot setback. It was then brought w the at~nfion that the eaves bad to count against that which is why the number became 2.4 because it's 2 foot eave on the house today. But if you take the...out of the picture for a minute because there's some comeugion with thaL Claybaugh: But is the footprint any closer to the lot line is what we're trying to clear up. Tom Suten The back end of the garage we're having an extension piece of somew~ between 9 and 11 feet and then at that point we're coming in a foot to a foot and a half furt~ than what. In the past, in the previous it was going to be a straight line, if you will, all the way down. Now we bring it in a foot to a foot and a half down that side. So we tried to minimi=e the intensi~cation which was raised at the prior meeting. Claybaugh: Right. Tom Suter: But without, if we bring it in much timber you gmay tm,eh comt~'o~ the mucmre internally with having it usable. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: If there are no further questions, do you have anything more to add? Thank you very much. Now this is not a public hearing, since it's an old item of business but if anybody from the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 public would want to address this item, please come forward at this point. State your name and address. Please sir, ff you want to. Yeah, from up there please, if you don't mind. ff you want to state your name and address for the record please. Dennis Baker. My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley Boulevard which is on the east side of the subject property. All I'd really like to say is I've talked to the Suter's and feel that what they plan to do is definitely an i .mpxovement in the property. The property presently is too close to the lake, which is the most i .mpottant thing. To the point where you can almost fish off their declc And they're going to i%nprove that. They're going to i ,reprove the lake~ore and the design of the house is very a~ling and my wife and I have 50-60 feet between our house and the property line on the east side of the subject ~, which is plenty of buffer. So I'd just like to say I hope you approve it for him. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak to this item? Doean't appear to be so I'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments? Discussion. How about we start with you CYaig. Claybaugh: First off I'd like to compliment the applicant by addressing the issues that we raised so thoroughly, comprehensively. It would always be nice to see more progress but certainly given the effort that you've put into it I feel that I can support it. I still ~e with the ~lUmre footage on the ~, having gone to a two story. But at this stage I am prepared to suppt~ iL Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: First off I'd like to say that I don't think Fve ever seen an applicant put as much detail and work and effort into their plan. If it looks as if, the renderings that we saw last time looks, it's going to be gorgeous. But I would like to go through the staff report a little bit as it rela~ to the findings because I'm having some difficulty. Is there a hardship? Well, the ~ alre~y bas reasonable use. I go down to number C. Does it increase the value of the ~? Absolutely. Go down to number D. It is serf creaI~. I look at th/s as if a new construction. Would we approve this if this was a new constmcfiom We are raising the entire existing habitable ~ and I don't think we would approve this if it was a new structure. I think it's too much on too little land and I can't suppart it as it is. Ithinkit's gorgeous. Ithink, i' d love to live there. Isaid that last time but I think it's too much on too small of a piece of din so I cannot support it as presented. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve. Lillehaug: I agree with Bruce. The applicant's increasing the house size right now, lilm Commissioner Feik said. They do have reasonable use of that property based on the existing size of the house. As indicated, they are trying to minimiT~ the intensity on the west side, bu~ you're still increasing the intensity of the non-conformance on the west side. No ms,~ how we look at it, it's increasing the non-conformance and that goes against the ordinance and I do not support it. It's awfully close to that property line. You indicated that you want to use this as demons~on purposes, which is great but I don't want to use it as a demonstration purpose to show how we go in direct conflict with non-conformances and increasing them_ I do not suptmrt it. And I hit on this last time also. When I looked through this report there's a table in here indicating adjacent properties and their non-conformances. By looking at that table I don't know if they were variances that were granted with the property when it was developed or if they were after the fact variances so that's why I have a hard time attaching these after the fact variances for the non- conforming lot with this property because if we grant these variances that are already due to the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 non-conformances on the size of the lot, ~ we're kind of setting a standard here that it really doesn't indicate. C-ive us any indication of we~ those variances s__tts_ched when the property was developed or are they after the fact because I don't, maybe Roger our city auorney would disagree with me but I won't support granting those after the fi~ variances in there. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich. Slagle: I just have a couple thoughts. First and forenx~ I would comment the applicant and his team for their thorough work, with the exception of the side yard setbacks, I would like to use it if we could as a model because I do think the sensitivities of the lake are being taken into consideration. The setback from the water. The i .mprovemem if you will of that I think is really what's driving me to support this, along with in tandem the concerted effort, I mean really almv~R beyond what I've seen before of this applicant and his team so I'm prep~ to support staff's recommendation. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt. Papke: Beautiful project. I just have one question~ I'm not quire clear on the historical preceden~ here. Have there be~m any other properties along Lak~ Riley Boulevard the~ that have been tear downs and m-builds to this extent? I'm just not quite clear. I'm very sensitive to the precedence issue but I jus~ want to make sure I'm clear being a new commissioner here tonight as to wl~ you know, has there been a previous ~ of a similar nature. Aaneuson: Sharmeen's worked probably on most of those variances so her indication is, they've either been additions or tear down's. It's similar to some of the ones in Carver Beach that are on Papke: Okay, so in the table here all of the...issue, this would not be setting a new precedent of that nature? Aanenson: That's an opinion you could form, sure. Papke: That's it. Sacchet: Bethany, do you have something to add? Tjomhom: Well I'm coming on the tail end of this. I was here acumlly for the first presentation so I remember a little bit of what happened and I just think it's an i .mprovement to the community. I think it's an old property and I like what you're doing with it. I like making things better. I like that you've paid so much attention to the lakeshore and the mmmfl habitat around it and so I'm inclined to support staff's recommendatiom Sacchet: The concerns that were raised by Bruce and Steve, the hardship, the self created, I would interpret those to be pre-existing. And I would agree with you Bruce that if this would be a new applicant we would not be able to approve it However, the situation is pre-existing. It's a hardship that it's a non-conforming lot. It's a non-conforming ~ and I would argue that the non-confonmnce is reduced because I think the most sensitive non-conformance is the lake setback. I mean the main concern for the city is the distance to the lake. I mean that's the most critical thing and that's dramatically i ,reproved and considering that every othe~ one of the non- conformances have been to some extent mitigated with the revision of the plan, I'm definitely in support of this proposal. Yes, it does increase the value of the protnaty but I would argue that if Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 changes are not made for the prime purpose of increasing the value, I mean the owner is doing that to live there. To in~. rove the ~ to live there. Not to i .mr~ve it to get a monetary gaim And I do want to commend the applicant for really addressing all the concerns we brought up last time. I mean that in itself is exemplary and needs to be connnended so I'm in very strong favor of passing this. So with that I am willing to take any mom discussion. Feik: Well I guess Fm wondering what is, what's the compelling reason here? We're bringing the house back from the lake. That's a good thing. Sacchet: Definitely. Feik: Every other variance is increasing. Every other vm'iance is inere4ming. I don't see any compelling reason here. Sacchet: I wouldn't agree that the other ones are increasing. Feik: The side yard setbacks are getting smaller. The footprint of the property is getting larger. I don't see quite frankly the compelling reason to go forward. Sacchet: Maybe I missed something. Feik: And please help me out here because Fm having a tough time with this one. Sacchet: Let's address this. Lillehaug: If I can add too. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: We had a resident to the east say that his buffer and setback was increasing between the houses. I wish we would have heard from the resident on the west because it's the opposite for that house. Feik: Yes it is. Lillehaug: So with my concern is the non-conformance is increasing on that side of the ~ is that property owner, you're increasing the length of the house on that side and in~ the intensity of that non-conformance on that one side of the property line. So yes, I agree that it's great to move this house away from the shoreline, but you're adversely affecting that direct adjacent property and that's one ofmy, that's my main cone. em. Feik: I would prefer to see the applicant buy 10 feet from the neighbor to make it work. Sacchet: I don't know whether 10 feet helps the other side frankly. Feik: This is 10 feet. Sacchet: I would argue that the setback is not really intensified in terms of how much setback there is. It's intensified over how long a stretch there is a closer setback. Is that an accurate statement to make? And that was one thing that was held against the applicant last time when 10 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 this was in front of us, and I do believe that the applicant made a sincere effort to reduce that encroachment. Feik: Oh I don't disagree with the effort. Sacchet: In that sense I think there is a balance between the intensi~cation and the mitigation. And that weighed against the big plus with taking the house back that I think that's whe~ F m balancing. Craig, do you want to add something? Claybaugh: Yeah I'd like to just direct the commissioners to page 4. Come back to the pea'mi~ use. One of the things that we spent a little time on at the first meeting, and haven't covered this meeting was what the definition of standards for single family dwelling are in 2003 versus what they were in 1951 when this structure was built. Okay, time hasn't stood still The standards haven't remained the same so to say that the applicant has reasonable use by today's standards, that point can be argued. Granted, it is a single family dwelling. So on and so forth. It has different attributes for a single family dwelling, and the benefit but are they of today's standards? Okay. The house was built in 1951. It's reasonable to think that something is going to have to happen to that structure in the near fimn-e. It's not going to remain as is. We run into this situation around Carver Beach fairly frequently. It's just they are umlersized lots. It's a difficult situation to address. We straggle with these each time but that's the point that carries the most weight with me is that by today's standards it's reasonable for them to want to place a new structure on there with in~,as~ square footage. I identified that, I struggled with the extent of the square footage. Having it be a two story with the size of footta'int, but I do assign a lot of weight to the upper and the mitigating factors that the applicant has introduced to the proj~ and for me it balances out. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Feikc One quick comment and then I'I1 be quiet Sacchet: You can always vote against it. Feik: Just for a rebuttal for what you're saying is, our ordinance says what is acceptable is 600 square feet and they clearly have 837 in the existing stmcO, ue so I would state that it certainly does have a reasonable use. Claybaugh: But that's 600 square feet for a two story, 960 for a rambler. Feik: With that, thank you. Sacchet: You can stand on your point. I appreciate that Any other points7 With that I would like to have a motion if possible. Clayhaugh: Make a motion~ Sacchet: Please. Claybaugh: Make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance ~g2003-7 for the 13,535 square foot variance. It encompasses the first paragraph with conditions 1 through 6. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2o03 Slagle: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Slagle: I have a point of clarificafio~ Sac, chex: Need clarification, okay. Slagle: With that change of eaves from the 4.4 to 2.4, is that taken into consideration in this first paragraph? So we're not missing anything. Sacchet: Good point. Aanenson: You referenced the plans dated in the staff report They would reflect the correct dimension if you want to refexence those in the motion for clarity. Sacchet: Okay, so it refers to the right plato Okay. Claybangh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance ~r2(M)3-7 for a 13~35 sqn_are foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; .~ foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first ll.S feet of the house only then reducing the setback to 5 feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the recomimctton of a single family home on an existing 6,46~ square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and based upon the foflowing conditions: . A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. 2~ The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north arrow; show a 12 inch or greater trees on the site and along the neighboring ~ lines; and the existing shed to the east. . No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary I-righ Water elevation. Type III silt fence must be provided during demolition and during consmicfion on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been mvegetate& , As part of the building permit submitta~ a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. . The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prep~ for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lake, scape plan. AH voted in favor, except Feik and lillelmug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM U~E PERbtlT TO BRING IN FILL IN EXCF.,~ OF 1~000 CUBIC YARDS~ 1916 CRESTVIEW DR1VE~ BRIAN CARNEY. Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Any questions from staff? Claybaugh: I just wanted Matt to cover th~ turnaround again. Was that something that's proposed or is that something that they are in fact. Saam: No. Yeah, that wasn't on what I just handed out. We just came up with that tonight If you look at this, we don't want cars having to back all the way down onto Galpin and. Slagle: Did you say back down or back up? Saam: Alfight, it would be back up. That's another good point. Claybaugh: We don't want anybody backing off the cliff MatL Saam: So the thing is just, as a condition just make sure there's sufficient turn around area for cars to turn around and pull forward out towards Galpin~ Claybaugh: Is that something the applicant is prepared to do, was my question. Considering you have sight line issues. Saam: We'll need to ask him yeah. I never talked to him about that issue. That just came up tonight. Feik: One quick one. In the handout you gave us tonight, you mentioned aligning this driveway up with the adjacent driveway across the road, would that move this drive n~ch or south? Much or? Saam: No it wouldn't I looked at it. This drawing that I have right here is not to scale. But I wok a quick measurement. It appems that where he's proposed the new driveway, it lines up fairly close with the existing one. That's some~ that we'll gumantee on the building permit We'll just make sure that that happens. Saam: So, but I did want to bring that up for safety sake. We want to line up those driveways. Don't want to have them offset. Feik: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve. Lillehaug: Yes I have a question. This is an interim use permit only for the fill, so this permit is approved, does this ever come in front of us again? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saam: No. If you approve it tonight it will go to council and ff they would approve it. Well whether you approve or deny tonight it will go to council. If they approve it, you won't see this again. Unless you would request some type of variance or. Lillehaug: ...any further development on it though we won't see it again then. Saam: No. Lillehaug: Okay. Then I have a couple questions. The tiered retaining walls, I hit on this previously. He has two 4 foot tiered retaining walls. I would probably make au argument that that lower retaining wall needs to be higher than 4 feet, but regardless of that, in my mind a tiered retaining wall needs to be looked at as one retaining wall. So does the city agree that this would be a retaining wall that would need to be engineer~? Saam: I believe it does. Or the building department already looks at tiered retaining walls as one. I guess I didn't verify that but I believe that is the case. Lillehaug: Okay. As far as an as-built sm'vey, would that be required upon completion of bringing this fill in? Sa&m: I don't believe so. I believe it's required not, it's not required until afh~ the building permit. After the house is installed. We could, yep you should could sum add a condition to do that, yeah. Lillehaug: Yep, that's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich. Single: Yeah a couple que~ons. Matt, cam you give me your opinion on the concept of planting, if I remember right, shrubs or trees along the edge of the driveway. I mean would those really stop a car slipping down the driveway, potentially going off of this double retaining wall? Saam: I guess after 2, say after 2 weeks installation, no. They're not going to stop it but I would think in the long term, yeah they would. Single: Let me ask you this. There is a house south of here of this ~ on Galpin, I believe it's the owners who used to own the land that Longacr~ is built on. They have a long driveway to the north of Jerome Carlson. Excuse me, to the south. And they have a long driveway which just recently they installed guardmils along their sections of their driveway because of drop off's. And I'll almost guarantee you their drop off's aren't like these drop off's. So I mean do we have any perspective of what I'll call protective measmc, s for situations like this? Saam: When you say perspective, do you mean. Single: Guardrails. Anything that would be safety related versus whether one to delineate a road, or a driveway which is what is here, or, I mean I'm looking for protection from cars. I mean let's just say this gentlemen doesn't throw salt on his driveway one day and it ices up and the Jones' come over for supper and down they go. I mean I'm just saying is there anything that we take into account? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saam: I believe for retaining walls that are over 4 feet in height, a fence is required. We don't typically require guardrails fencing along driveways. None that I know of. Aanenson: Clarify that. It is au interim use. You may ~sch any conditions that you believe are reasonable. Slagle: I'm just trying to understand what reasonable is in this s~se of staff. I will say to the rest of the commissioners that I will be Nmpared to add as a conditiom Sacchet: Well let's wait with connmmts please. Any more questions? Clayhaugh: What is the slope coming off that road? Both to the north and to the south. I mean you've identified it as a cliff and. Saam: Oh, coming off the driveway. Claybaugh: Very negative images, yeal~ What is the actual slope? Saam: On the north side it's approximately 5 to 1. Over along the east side he~'e and in this area it's 4 to 1. On the south side of the driveway it ge~s up to 3 to 1 and th~'s the maximum slope. Ciaybaugh: O~y. Saam: Or the steepest point. Claybaugh: And then really the trees that you're looking at putting in, for the first 10 years they're just going to be markers to help identify... Saam: I guess you could ask the applicant but that's what I was envisioning 2 inch trees. Claybaugh: It's not going to stop any cars but it will serve as a marker. Saam: That's why maybe a shrub and working with the City Forester, maybe a shrub. Something that would get bigger would be better. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Papke: I have another naive, new commissioner question he~ for staff. Just on the code hem. The bottom line is there's a variance being asked for in excess of a thousand yards of fill on thi~ lot. Is there any latitude for the size of the lot or is that, is the code fixed regardless of the size of the lot? Saam: Is your question regarding is the~ a maximum amount of fill he can bring in? In relation to the size of the lot. Papke: Is it at all proportional to the size of the lot or if this was a 10 at, re lot, would the~ still have to be a variance is my question? Saam: Yes. I didn't touch on that. The reason he needs to come before yourselves and the City Council is because he's requesting to bring in over 1,000 cubic yards. Wheth~ that's 5,000 or 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 1,100, he needs to come to you. If it was under 1,000 cubic yards, matt could administratively approve it. Papke: Right, but the flip side of my question was that limit is fixed regardless of the size of the lot. Aanenson: There's no proportionality. Papke: There's no proportionality. Saam: Yep. Papke: I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you very much. So all the questions. With that, if the applicant wants to come forward and address the commission, please do so. State your name and address for the record. And particularly interested to hear what's changed since you were here last time. Brian Carney: My name is Brian Carney. I live on 6566 Shadow Lane. About a haft mile up the road. We have not gotten anywhere as far as negotiations on what we're going to do with the neighbors. If they're going to gain me access through their ~ or not. There was also talk about them possibly wanting to purchase a piece of land from me. We have a meeting set up for next Saturday at 9:00, but at this point I'd like to just proceed with the plan of developing the lot into a single family home. Not knowing what, you know what lies in the fima-e with our talks or meetings or whatever. I also would consider putting some type of fence, you know strong fence or guardrail along the driveway to help, you know for saOzty reasons. I don't think bushes are going to do any good. I don't think trees are going to do much good for the first 5 or 10 yea~ so I guess I would be willing to put something along the driveway that would fit, you know look decent and be of use to safety. The reason why the walls are the height they are because I didn't want to get them engineered. I kept them at the level of 4 feet so I didn't have to get into the engineering part. I believe that if the walls were done correctly I think they would ~_dequately hold the soil because of the soil that I'm bringing in is very compactable. And as far as the turn around in the driveway, I have every intention of having a turn around as a part of the driveway. I would never expect anybody to have to back all the way to Galpin on a driveway so. W'ah that I'd just, I just want to keep moving forward with this and. Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant? Thank you very much. Again this is an old item of business. It's not formally a public hearing but if anybody wants to come forward, address the commission on this imm, please do so now. State your name and satire, ss for the record please. Charlie Hicks: Good evening. I'm Charlie Hicks. I'm at 1941 Crestview Circle. I'm one of the properties that is contiguous with the pmixmy that is in question and I'm to the east. Unlike last time I was here I believe I referred to it as the west. My intention is to start a dialogue with Mr. Carney. We're meeting Saturday morning and once we finish our discussion on bimm~hs, we'll talk about the property itserf. I just thought I would FYI you on that. That's our intentions. Sacchet: So you're intending to come to some sort of an agreement? Charlie Hicks: We'll start a dialogue, yes. Sacchet: Dialogue, okay. 16 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 Charlie Hicks: We'll hopefully come w, I'm not council so I can't be as ambiguous as I'd like. Sacchet: You're ambiguous enough. Okay. Charlie Hicks: Thank you all. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please do so now. State your name and address for the record please. Troy Pappas: I'm Troy Pappas at 1961 Ov, stview and a follow-up to Charlie, I am part of the meeting. We are going to try to come to an agree~t on the ~. Our intention is to not have anything go from that ~ so ff we can com~ to an agreem6mt, to get this rrmtt~ resolved. Get the din that's there out of them and back to natural resomces. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? If not Fll bring it back to commission. Comments, discussion. Steve, you want to start please? Lillehaug: Yep. I hope your meeting goes well This is a tough driveway. Are we over stepping our bounds by attac~g some conditions that typically wouldn't be attached to a landowner and his development of this property? In my opinion we're not over stepping ii Hauling in 1,000 yards is a significant measure. It's my intentions to look out for the safety and well being of the new property owner. That property does have a for sale sign on it. That mils me there's going to be an unknown owner there so what Fll be doing is attaching a few conditions. One will be regarding the wall that I hit on before. That it needs to be engineered. I'll be a,s_ching a condition requiring an as-built survey. FI1 also be ~tmehing a condition requiring the first 15 foot directly adjacent to the county highway to be at a maxinmm grade of 2 percent, which will not allow a car during the winter to not try to race up that driveway so it doesn't have to stop fight at the highway so it doesn't just continue moving rather than not stopping. I'll also be attac~ a condition to revise the grading plan fight near the house pad because the driveway there, if my calculations are fight it shows the driveway kind of askewed them at a cross slope of about 20 percent. That's excessive. And then we're filling about 20 plus feet I think in the little wetland ravine there. I think Fd also like to attach a condition that the applicant provide a suitable source of material and let the City review where the source of rr~t_~'ial is coming from so no poor...also be attaching a condition requiring soils testing be submitted to the city insuring that proper densities are obtained and that's probably enough conditions out of me, thanks. Sacchet: It's a good share, yeah. Rich. Slagle: Well I'll just add that I will request, and Mr. Chair I don't know if now is the time to be adding a condition but it will be the safety fence. And I want to commend the applicant for making that gesture that he would be open to thst but more i .mportantly I think just the fact that the folks are getting together and talking this coming week is maybe the fruits of our efforts from 2 weeks ago so thanks to all. Sacchet: Kurt any comments? Papke: No comments. Sacchet: Bethany? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saechet: So we have 5 to 2. Motion can4es. Thank you very much~ Tjomhom: I have two, and I'm agreeing again so if staff could answer a question for me. When I look at the plat I see the prope~ and then I also see 1, 2, 3, 4 other properti~ on Galpin Lake, is that correct? How do they access it? Do they have driveways? Saam: This property which is directly to the south of the ~ in question has a driveway onto Cralpin. The property to the no~h of the one we're looking at accesses onto Crestview. This one on the other side I believe has two accesses. This is the one that does have a driveway onto Galpin directly across the street from our's but I believe it also has one onto ~ew Drive. Fm not positive but, and then 6640 which is kitty corner from our site accesses onto Galpin. Tjomhom: So it does have other access~ then from lots? Saam: Yes. Tjomhorn: Okay. That's all I was wondering. And I have one more questiom Not for staff but just a comment. About the road and the incline and oncoming cars. S~ people use mirrors on the driveway so they can look and see what is coming before they do rrudm a turn, and maybe that's a useful suggestion also as to solving that problem of tra~c and accidents. Saam: That could be a condition. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce. Feik: Sure. Getting back to when we saw this a couple weeks ago. I just want to remind the commissioners that we cannot deny them access to their property. We have to give them access so now the question is what is reasonable access 'and I certainly believe' that the retaining walls should probably be engineereA, Some guardmils or something for safety ~ve bm I just want to remain the commissioners that we need to somehow figure out a way to legally get them access. The reason this is in front of us is because of the amount of fill more thsn anything else so I would certainly agree with Steve' s comments earlier in parfiodar and approve. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I think Steve hit on most of the lmy points, specifically the 2 percent grade coming out onto Galpin so cars just don't come on down the driveway at an accelerated ram spilling out onto Galpin. The soil testing, it's something I would like to see. I haven't made up my mind whether I would supix~ it being a condition. Certainly submitting the fill material to city staff for approval is a low cost safety measure that can be i .mlx~xl. The guardmil, certainly a good idea. Don't know what form that would take. In terms of en~neering the wall, I think that's a given. And that being said I'd like to have the applicant look at raising the height of that wall, being engineered and U',y and mitigate the slope of that cross slope coming down off the driveway. And even though staff was uncertain about it, the applicant assured the commission that they would incorporate a turn around so that's a positive aspect Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Personally it's very hard for me to reconcile ever filling in the creek. Environmentally I think that's terdble. Safety wise I have a real issue with this being, these steep slopes as well as the difficult visibility to the south on Galpin, but unforumamly personal opinion is totally irrelevant for us sitting up here. We're not here to share personal opiniom We're here to look at ordinance and code and we cannot prevent this property from being accessed. If there's 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 no other access than from Galpin we have to allow it so therefore as Bruce pointed out, legally we're obliged to allow that. I think it's appropriate to put conditions on it to mitigate those concerns, at least the safety concerns as much as possible, and I really would want to enco~ neighbors to find an equitable solution. I think it's going to be for the benefit of the people that live there. It's going to be for the benefit of the city. If an alternate solution can be found, either an alternate access from Crestview Circle or whatever you guys can come up with so I definitely want to encourage that. With that I would like to have a motiom Who wants to try? You were the most prolific there. Lillehaug: I've got to find it here. Okay. I make the motion the Planning Commission approves Interim Use Permit Am I on the right one here? Sacchet: Yeah, I think you're on the right place. Page 10. Lillehaug: Interim Use Permit O03-1 with the following conditions. 1 through 18. And someone tell me if I double up here but I'm going to be adding 19. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to minirni~ the slope. Previously it was graded at 10 pewent Number 20. The driveway will be revised to have a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacent to G-alpin. I must be on number 20. Sacchet: It's 21. Lillehaug: Okay. The retaining w~lls will be engineered by a design professional. Sacchet: Do you want to add that to condition 177 There's already one thst says something about the wails, isn't it? Lillehaug: Okay, add to and revise condition numlx~ 17 as such. The next condition. Soils testing will be required and submitted to the city for the fill material. Number 22. Slagle: That's actually 17Co) I think. Sacchet: Okay yeah, let's make that 17Co). Lillehaug: Add it to and revise as such I guess. The next condition. Sacchet: 21. Lillehaug: Submit fill material types and borrow sources to the city for approval. The next condition 22, add a turn around to the driveway. And 23, submit an as-built survey to the city upon completion. That'd be it for me, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. I think we can add one or two more. Anybody want to add? Slagle: A friendly amen~t to ~a_d a guardrail that would nm on the north and south side of. Sacchet: Oh wait a second. We need a second first. Excuse me. Feik: I'll second. Sacchet: Second, okay. Go ahead Rich. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: A guardrail that would run on the north and south side of the driveway and I'll leave it up to staff as to where it would begin and end. Sacchet: That's number 23, the guardrail. Lillehaug: Do we want to specifi~y say guardrail? Sa~chet: Guardrail, is that the right tea'm? Staff7 Aanenson: It could be fencing. Sacchet: Well I think we want more than a fence. Aanenson: Barrier. Papke: I have a question about that. I mean we're not l~nDot here. Do we have any codes or specifications for such a guardrail that we could refer to? Saam: Yeah, l~nDot does have a detail for the guardmil so ff you specify that then we'll make sure something slong... Sacchet: How about work with staff. Slagle: How about similar to the 101 trail... And then I've got one last question. I don't know if the guardmil, if it does get approved, if that would maim point 18 moot. Condition 18. Saccbet: I still want trees. Slagle: Okay, but I'm just saying that you might not be putting the trees whe~ the guardrail might go. Sacchet: The way they're spaea~ conect~ Work with staff. Feik: But 18 was from a couple weeks ago. Slagle: I understand. Saccbet: I'd like to add one more. Condition 24 to line up the driveway with the opposite, the one opposite on Galpin. That's a lot of them Probably onouglz Anybody else7 Okay, Steve are those aex6'ptable friendly amendments Steve? Lillehaug: I'm just having a tough time with guardrail. Is that extensive7 Saccbet: How about do you want to make it work with staff to determine7 Lillehaug: I guess I'll accept it at this point. Sacchet: Accept it as is, okay. Okay, we have a motion. We have a secxmcL We have some additions. Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2o03 Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Plnnntng Comml~on ~ approval of Interim Use Permit ~q}3-1, subject to the following conditions: lw The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee erosion control measur~ and site restoration and compliance with the Interim Use Permit. 2. Culvert sizing calculations will have to be tn~o. vided for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. 1 If fill is coming from another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. All disturbed areas as a result of consuucfion are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. 1 The applicant shall pay the City an administra~on fee of $'208 prior to the City signing the rmit. 7. An erosion control blanket must be installed on the south side of the driveway slope. 8. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey. Comply with the Carver County conditions of approval letter dated April 11, 2002 for a driveway access permit to the site. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with ail permit require~nents of the Watershed District. 11. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been 12. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re~pread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disc mulch seeding shall be imp~ immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 13. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid by the applicant. 14. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour tmf~ flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately 15. The applicant shall be mstmosible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 16. The applicant shah construct and maintain a rock gravel consmacfion access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. 17. Building Official conditions: a. d. The retaining walls must be designed by a professional engineer. Soil and compaction testing is required on the proposed building site if any fill If city sewer service is not available to the ~, two (2) acceptable on-site sewage treaunent sites must be located by a licensed professional and the marked and prot~aut to prevent damage from the grading activity. The address for the ~ shall be 6591 Galpin Boulevard. 18. The applicant shall plato a minimum of five trees and shrubs and 20 shrubs on the slopes of the proposed drive to help minimize run-off and i .reprove erosion control. The tree species shall be deciduous and a minimum 1 inch diamet~ for the u'ees. Shrubs shall be at least 2 feet high when planted. Proposed planting sites and species selection shall be approved by the city prior to planting. 19. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to mi~dmiT~ the slope. The driveway will be revised to lmve a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacent to Galpin. 21. Submit fill material types and borrow sourees to the city for approval. 22. Add a turn around to the driveway. 23. Submit au as-built survey to the city upon cmnpl~om The applicant will work with staff on the installation of a barrier along the north and south side of the driveway. The driveway shall line up with the driveway on the opposite side of Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unauimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: With that I see that we still have our youngest person here so we'H jump. to item number 5 on the agenda. PUBLIC NE~G: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REAR YARD FENCE ~GRT yARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RF~IDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ LOC~ATED AT ~ AND $16 BIG WOODS BOULEVARD~ (LllrF STATION #10 SITE)~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Matt. Questions fxom staff. Rich. Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003 Slagle: I just have a couple Matt. And I apologize for not having a chance to get out to this proposal but where are the homes in relationship to this7 I mean how close are we talking sight lines? Saam: The sight lines, let me get my scale. Maybe the homeowners can speak more to that, but I can scale some distances off of them for you ff you want. The houses are proposed, there's one going to be going in here. Sacchet: They're not there yet? Saam: It may be being built fight now but it's not completed. Nobody's living there yet. I know this one is under construction, two lots dovax And then this one to the north I don't believe is under construction yet. But again maybe the neighbors can speak to thaL Slagle: Okay. And then final question. Is there any concern on your part that we would by approving this, let's say we do, that we're going to have others who live next to lift stations coming and saying I want a fence around my lift station? Saam: Yeah, I hope we're not opening a can of worms. I mean this one was different We did a feasibility study, not just to look at screening for some new lake lots. We did it because the wet welh weren't sized big enough. Pumping issues. That sort of real en~neering type issues that could flood basements and cause a lot of danmge. So I don't foresee people with lift stations in their back yards coming in and requgst~g that. If they do I think we'd probably tell them they're out of luck~ Sacchet: Any more quesfi~? Bruce. Feilc I have one. Assuming you go with the neighbors proposal, does that give you adequate room to do maintenance on the generator in particular? Is it too closes? Saatm That's a good question. Two things I want to point out. In talking with maintenance staff, their concern is the wet well is in this area. They're going to want to back their big vactor truck up here to pump out the wet well so if this wall was built like that, it would have to be hinged or easily removable. And the same in this area to get to the generator, that sort of thing. The one thing I haven't checked on is the transforrr~. It's owned by Xcel Energy. They may require a 5 foot clear zone around that. 4 fool So this may have to be moved back a bit, but that's the general layout of how it's going to be. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Have any other questions from statT? Claybaugh: Yeah, specifically. City staff had commented on what they needed for space to maintain. Saam: Yes. Yeah, I checked with our Utility Superintendent and it was in this area and then out in front of the generator. They're going to need easy access. Whether those sides be hinged or easily removable. 23 Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003 Claybaugh: Right. Sust in looking at the two proposals there's a lot of room left inbetwoen the two of them to expand on the neighbor's proposal and minimize the city's proposal and still not put yourseff in a shoe box. So where, that would be my recommend. I don't know why we'd... Sacchet: Well let's wait with comuz~ts Craig. We're not quite ~ yet. We're asking questions. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Any more questions? Yes. Papke: How tall is the lift station? How much of it is going to appear above this 6 foot fence? Saam: I believe the generator is the tallest piece of equipment out them, and maybe David can speak to that. I know he was out there just today but the gen~ is on a concrete pad fight he~ and that generator's probably S feet higE So that could possibly be above the fence line, but there are trees out there in the summer with foliage. I don't think it will be easy to see those. Tjomhorn: I have, is there an existing fence anywhere around a lift station now just to tmxect people from getting into it? Saam: No. We don't typically put fences around them so no, them isn't. Tjomhorn: Okay. Sacchet: I have a few questions since you're talking trees, am we actually cutting o'ees them to make that fence? Saam: We're hoping we won't have to cut any trees. Saccbet: So you're not quite sure, okay. Sasm.' Yeah we're not If we do have to ta~ any out, we'H replace them at a 1 to 1 ratio. Sacchet: Yeah, that's part of my question too. Is it normally when somebody else comes in that is not ourselves we ask for a 1 to 27 Or 2 to 1, whichever way you look at it. Saam: Yes itis. The City Forester's recommendafionis lto 1 so. Sacchet: Okay. Well I would disagr~ with that but we're not at ~. You're also talking about additional trees and landsca~ vegetation will be planted. Do we have a plan for that? Saam: Well that's going back to our proposal when it was. Sacchet: Yeah, but I don't see any plantings on them though. Saam: No, we kind of, I kind of left it ambiguous to leave it up to yourselves. If you wanted to attach some additional trees if you saw. Sacchet: To be determined. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: And then to follow-up on Craig's comment about that there is fair amount of space between the original proposal and the neighbor's proposal. One thing that also irks me is why this many angles? Why can't we make it a rectangle of sorts7 Saam: On the neighbor's proposal? Sacchet: Yeah. What's the advantage of having... Saam: Maybe you can ask it to them_ I'm sm~ it's to minimiT~ the size of the area, the fence. Sacchet: We'll ask the applicant. That's all the questions then. Thank you very much Matt. Now this was staff, as well as applicant in one hit. We're being very efficient here. This is a public hearing so I open the public hearing if anybody from the public wants to come up to address this item, please come forward at this time. State your name and address and we'll listen to you. David Igel: Good evening, my name is David Igel. My address is 6550 York Avenue South in Minneapolis but I am building the home at 501 Big Woods Boulevmxl which is to the south of this property. It's not touching it but I suppose adjacem to the affected properties. Lillehaug: Could you point to that on the map? I want to ~ if it was the one direly next to the driveway or the one that's already under construction. David Igel: We are, wall maybe I can help clear that up a little bit. This is my, where I am, where we are building our house. It's in eonstmctiom This is the house that Matt mentioned might be under constructiom It is not but that is where the house will be c, onstn~ted. The house on 516 will lightly be constructed in this area right in here, just to give you a feel. The lift station is right here. Does that clarify it? Lillehaug: Thanks. David Igel: Again I am, we're not applying for the variance. What has been discussed for the last year or so, or longer is that the city would provide screening becam~ there were some changes going on with the lift station and such so rm not, certainly not opposed to the variance. I was not necessarily in agreement with the large box and privacy fence that was brought out. I don't want to speak for anyone else but one of the neighbors, Greg Lindsley who's going to be most impacted by this who couldn't make it tonight, would rather have nothing than that. So if it was to be between this large box, I think you'd have a lot of neighborhood opposition but again ! can't speak for anyone else other than Mr. Lindsley and myself. What 'we've proposed was something of a lower i .mpact and all we're trying to do is get it to blend in. We're laying to draw as little attention. I think it worked out to the advalltage of everyoRe that this, that what we're asking for, what we would recommend is that it's less expensive. It's less inlrusive. The question was asked on why there's a couple of little in's and out's on that and that's primarily to save trees. The entire tree survey isn't represented on this plan. If you go out them you can identify that this makes a little more sense, as opposed to building a fence around trees we thought we'd try to get it in and sneak it in between the items and keep the trees on the outside to increase the screening of those existing trees and not take any dowm Depending on where it goes, I don't know if anymore trees need to be taken down but there have been a fair amount of trees' taken down and I assume the city has an inventory of it. I know that as you say they require Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 inventories of trees from private individuals going in. There were a number of trees taken down behind this so, and that would be part of my reque~ of the council as a condition of additional trees and vegetation be as a condition if thi~ variance is approved. We would go the next step and offer the assistance to the city I guess as far as installing them ourselves. We've got some of the equipment down there because we're building homes and things like that. What I would hate to do is get into a situation where the city would rec~d, or an outside contractor would just go and plop them in where they thought best where we are spending tons of money and tons of our own time and at the .very least we've like to work very directly with whoever decides where those trees go. But like I said, if it's of any value to the city we can, you know ff you bring a bunch of rocks and trees down there and say, here. Set it up so it's screened, that would really probably be our preference on it. The other thing is, this is a bright orange generator that's in with a bunch of green trees and brown dirt and green vegetatiom There's no question that this needs to be painted green. That was part of the original discussion so I would also request that that be a condition of the variance if it's approved. And then like I said, the reduced size fence I think tak~ it from what becomes something that's a gigantic box and people's eyes are drawn to, to something that blends in much more which is why we thought we could go with the lattice work which vines eventually grow and kind of blends in more so. So I appreciate the staff working with us to this point on it. I think that they've been out the~. We've been out there and they've tried to take our suggestions as much as possible. Those are the few thin,.,~s that I mentioned though that we would really like to see as conditions of it and ffyou have any questions of me, I'm fairly familiar with the area. I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise. Sacchet: Go Rich. Slagle: From your observations, your opinion, would the neighb~h~ ~on hide if you will the generator adequately? David Igel: Well just in kind of brief comments. I don't know that, part of the problem is that a 6 foot fence, I don't know if it's even going to cover it but if you can see some of the grade lines here, everything else is up on a hill. That's why I think the additional trees are going to be required. It's going to block it from the lake, which is i ,mpottant. It's going to block it when you're standing right next to it, but without any kind of trees, the houses are going to be looking right at it and that's why I was hoping ff we could get more ~ in there I think that's really going to be the better plan. And that's, part of the reason I think you know we're going from 200 linear feet of 6 foot expensive cedar down to probably 90 feet of linear lattice so the~'s a great expense there and what we were hoping to, and that I suppose is up to the city and yourselves. Perhaps we could tak~ advantage of some of that cost savings and some s_aOifional trees which I think is better for the whole community and the neighlxa'hood. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Yes Kurt. Papke: Question for staff. Speaidng of painting, is there an intent to paint or stain the fence? And if so, does the landscaping plan have to take into account space around it to get in there with a sprayer or something like that? Saam: Yes, we had plans to stain the fence upon iustallafiom And then yes, we'll take into account, if we need another foot here or there to get in there. Papke: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 David Igel: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward at this time. State your name and address for the record please. Andrea Eidsness: Hi. I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live on 630 Carver Beach Road. I am directly to the north of the ~ that, thank you. And we're one of the homes that are existing there and we're up on the hill. I have two primary concerns with regard to this request. One of them being the noise level. I know that the council underwent the feasi~ty study a while back. I am not, I've not been made aware, I don't have a copy of that feasibility study and wheth~ ar not all of the items that were recommended by the people that undertook that study were in fact implemented ar if this is just one of the conditions that has been chosen to be implemented.' I would like the council to review that and make sure that the condition of the current lift station is sufficient to handle the 8ddifional development that is going in. There's 9 new homes that are going in there and I would hate to have you go through the trouble of installing the fence only to tear it down a year later because the lift station needs to be i .reproved upon. I would rather have it not go in and wait far that i .mprove~t to be made and that lift station. My concern is with regard to the noise, which is sort of connected to my concern about whether ar not the lift station is adequately functioning. Again over the weeimnd there was a large truck ar generator of some sort that was brought in on wheels. Backed down in them and it was so noisy we had to close up our entire home and couldn't listen to the television from across the living room. The noise was so incredibly loud from that facility that was brought in. It made it unbeamd~le. We're two lots away. So whether or not this privacy fence really does anything from really helping to cut down the noise, again I would reco~d that the city consider putting in large trees. Pine trees ar something of that sort that would help to drown out the noise, in addition to providing some additional screening for that particular lift statiom Sacchet: Thank you. Could we just ~ddress maybe these concerns. They're both of some interest here. Saam: Sure. The first one was the feasi~ty study. I believe she wants to make sum all the conditions of that were. Sacchet: Right, and I remember at one point that lift station was comide~ed not quite up to the development. I thought it was i .reproved since, is that correct? Saam: Yes. However not all of the recommendations of the feasibility study, the fence being one, have been implemented to this point. We're going to do it in a phased approach because of budgetary reasons. And then the other issue that she brought up in regards to the i .mpmve~ are, we'd have to rip down the fence if we have to go in there in a year to do more i .m!u~vements. We did look at that. The improvements will be to the front area where the hinged doors would be, so we foresee just swinging the doors open to get in there with a backhoe or whatever we'd need to do to dig in front of the fence and ~ station area. The noise issue, I believe they started the generator up today and what I heard from the maintenance workers was that this new generator, which is out there, a permanent one, is much...truck may be backing up and the emergency noises on the truck ar the diesel engine nmuing, but I know they didn't start that generator up until today. At least it wasn't scheduled to be started until today so it couldn't have been running this weekend. Andrea Eidsness: Well whatever went in over the weekend, they brought it in at about 4:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and we put up with it but we finally called the sheriff at 10:30 at night Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 because it was still running and so loud that we couldn't even sleep. So I don't know what that was but. Saam: Okay. Yeah, I'm not aware of what was going on. I can sure check into that. Sacchet: Is it still on? Andrea F, idsness: No. Somebody came and took it away Satmxlay night at about midnight so I don't know what happenS... Saam: See we used to have a portable generator out at the site. A big yellow one. It was on a trailer. We took that out to do another well. We got this permanent generator out there now. That's the one they kicked off starting today. Sacch~t: So today was alright? Andrea Eidsness: Today it was, well I drove by there on my way home from w~rk prior to coming to this meeting so. Sacchet: I would hope that the new generator is not going to create that problem basically. Andrea Eidsness: So there wouldn't be a need to bring in the re. mote facilities at all in the future...generator is sufficient to handle. Saam: Exactly. That was one of the i .mpmve~ rec. o~ded in the feasi~W study was to install a pe~ent generator on the site. Slagle: Well just as a point of clarification. Maybe Matt what she might be referring to is the truck that vacuumed the...whatever. Saam: That could be too. Those could come back in the future, yeah. If there is an emergency at the lift station. Sac. cE: That wouldn't be during the night, Satm~y to Sunday though. Saam: Whenever that lift station goes down. Sacchet: Oh, when it goes down it has to be attended to, alright. Saam: But that's only a temporary thing too in emergency situations. Andrea Eidsness: But in that case, ff that is something that would ha~ on more of a routine basis, I assume that if you got more watex that's going through the lift station, the frequency with which that would need to be pu .roped out is probably going to increase versus ~ when more homes are going in. To that point, if we are going to have remote equipment that goes in there to do that, causing that Large of a noise constraint, I would prefer again to see large pine trees planted in there that would help absorb some of that sound versus a privacy fence, as I think that the trees will help in the condition that we're dealing with on a infrequent basis rather than the constant. Saam: Staff is not opposed to additional trees. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 20o3 Lillehang: Matt could you comment on the actual generator. Is that just for a, is that a back-up generator or is that a generator that. Saam: Well, whether it's a back-up or a regular, it's a generator for when the electricity goes out at that lift station. LiHehaug: So it's not running, that's what Fm getting at. Saam: No, no. It only runs ff the electficLty goes out or if there's some other reason. Lillehaug: So normal case. Saam: No, it's just the lift station... Lillehaug: ...it will be pretty quiet. Lillehaug: So this is an abnonx~ case I would think. Saam: Yeah, if the generator's running there's an unusual circumstance going on. Slagle: And we have no issues, if I can ask, to paint it7 Saam: I guess yes we do. That's something we disagree with. The neighbom spoke on, David. We're not, we weren't aware of any requirement that they wanted it painted. It came as standard Caterpillar yellow. That's what comes out. If we would have known beforehand we sure would have ordered it in green, so I guess there's some dissgreemem there. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Andrea Eidsness: No. You can look at the yellow from the lake, just for your information and understanding, and I appreciate you heating my first...thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? Go ~.~ please. Mark ]'ohnson: Thank you. My name is Mark Jolm~o, 16425 Mayfiekt Drive, F_Aen Prairie. I am the owner of the lot located at 516 Big Woods Boulevard, which is directly to the north ofthe site and I would just like to encourage the council to not only suptxgt the variance for the fence but also to work with us on painting this thing because it really does stand out like a sore thumb and it do~, it's pm~ ugly. I know it's a tmc~.~sity but painting it is a ve~ simple solution I think. And also, I'd also encourage the council and staff to work with the neighbors that are affected by this to add additional foliage and trees so that it's not visible, not only from the lake but also from the neighbors since our houses will be located fitrther up the slope on each one of those properties. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this. This is your time. Seeing nobody, Fll close the public hearing and bring it back to discussion and conm~e~ from commissioners. Want to start? Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Sure. I think this is not setting ~ to put a fence around this lift station. There's a lake directly adjacent there. The generator is a huge generator. Typical lift stations don't have them that large of a genexator next to it I think. You can con~ me on that. I think for the most part it's a very large, very large intrusion on that area and a fence is justified. I think this, either way we do this fence here I think tl~ fence would nee~ to fully eneon~ass the lift station and the generator. Specifically looking at that lot, direly adjacent to the driveway, ff the fence doesn't encompass that generator and the li~ station in front of the~, they'll have direct sight line with the generator so I think whatever we do with the fence there it needs to fully encompass it and provid~ ade~uam mainmnance room around both the generator and the li~ station aa well as the transformer. I support the variance. Saeebet: Thank you. Slagle: No comments. Papke: I think the proImsal to put additional foliage is cextainly a good one from a noise perspective but I think it will be a while before that obviously has much of an i .mpact unless there's pretty substantial trees in there so I, you know I don't know how effective that will be in the short term, but I think it's a good project. Saechex: Bethany? Tjomhom: No comments. Satchel: Brace. Feik: Yes. Matt, one of the residents mentioned some trees that were taken down to the east of the lift station. Was that done by us or was that done by the builder and was that inclnd_,~_ in the builder's tree inventory? Saan~ I'm unaware of who took them down or when it hagpened. I can investigate that. Folk.. ff it's something from the builder, then it's a different sort of issue. Saam: Yeah, if we took them down we'll sure replace them like I said at 1 to 1. And that's something I'll check with... Feilc Trend's going against you Matt. Couple things I guess. I would certainly like to see the trees replaced on a 2 to 1. Painting of the generator, I'd like to caution us regarding painting the generator. Once you paint the factory paint it's going to be a giant maintenance issue. Long term you're going to be painting it very often. And Steve, I respectfully disagree on your fully encompassing the station. I think you'r~ going to have balls and things going in the~ and kids trying to climb over to retrieve their balls and Frisbee's so I could see fully encompassing with an offset opening, like a tennis court, but so that you have ~ so you're not asking little kids to crawl up over a 6 foot fence. That's it. Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce. Claybaugh: Yeah, I think the City's fence outline was a little too broad. I think that the neighbors may be a little too restrictive with respect to maintaining the lift statiom Certainly not in favor of fencing in trees and saving them for the lift station. I understand that to go with a 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 foliage buffer would be more of a long term commi~t but with houses just going in now, I think within 3 to :5 years that they could start seeing some real benefit and ~y in 8 to 10 years I think the benefit would outweigh that of a cedar lattice fence or otherwise significantly so it's not one of the proposals but I would be in favor of expanding the foliage. Slagle: Mr. Chair, I just have a thought, if I may. Sacchet: Sure. Slagle: It might be worth suggesting at least as a compromise with some of the owners of the land there, that maybe we can work with the city and there could be a shared cost perhaps as maybe that it's labor or equipment or size of trees. I mean maybe we're talking to get 6 to 8 foot evergreens. They're pricier than what we normally would do but maybe the~'s some compromise that staff can work with the owners on thst and you accelerate that growth. Sacchet: Good thought. I don't have too many new thoughts on this context. I was a little struggling why do we even have a fence ff we don't have fence in other places but it certainly makes sense that we shield it since it's at the lakm I would be concerned about having to x~dnt the generator because of the maintenance aspect But certainly in favor to shield it with landscaping and with the fence. I would want to hold us however to the same standard that we hold everybody else to and do it 2 to 1, ff we have to cut trees. And I would, ff there would be an applicant I would say work with staff, but on this ease I have to say staff work on determining definitely is more generous in terms of what we need to encase in a fence and I would say the one of the neighbors is too skimpy. I appreciate your point that you were uying to navigate around the trees, and I would be in full favor of that but I would like staff to work on that and see what's trees and everything around it. So with that, does anybody venture a motion please. Who's going to be daring? Bruce, go ahead. Feik: Recommend the Planning Commission approves variance 20034 to allow the installation of a 6 foot high fence at Lift Station #10 locat~ at 500 and 516 Big Woods Boulevard ~ on the findings of fact in the staff~ with the changes that the trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio. That the location of the fence be such to ~dequately allow work to be perf~ around the equipment. And that it be fully screened 360 degrees with access, open access to it. I think you know where I'm going on that. So that if Frisbee's and footballs and thin,~os go in there, the kids can get them out Sacchet: Frisbee retrieval access, I think we got it. We have a motiom Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Are you talking lattice? Feik: I'm comfortable with what the city staff and the neighbors can work out If it's amenable to the neighbors, and it's less expensive, that's fine with me. Sacchex: One friendly addition. How about we say the mitigation of trees would have to be pine trees. Evergreens. Evergreens, just to make the shielding year round. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: The only question I would have Mr. Chair is if, and again not that they're, if the foliage is so dense. Sacchet: Whether it would prosper, yeal~ Feik: Or if it's too low that we're not going to get. Sacchet: Yeah, there' s a significant amount of canopy the way I remember it. So yes, it may not work so. Saam: If I could just interject something we could do. If you wanted to do evergreens, a combination of some landscape, maybe berming where you put them on there to help screen. C~ them up higher to shield from those homes. I mean we can work with the neighbors on that Sacchet: So basically staff work on that Feilc And then another one, staff work with the neighbors as it relates to location of the trees. So if you want to strategically locate them for their deck or something. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commi~don approves variance 2003-8 to allow the installation of a 6 foot high fence at LtI~ Station #10 located at ~0 and 516 Big Woods Boulevard based on the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio. , The location of the fence be such to adequately allow work to be pexf~ around the equipment, that it be fully screened 360 degrees with open access to it. 3. City staff shall work with the neighbors in the placement of trees. All voted in favor, except Claybaugh who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 tol. Sacchet: Do you want to comment about this? Claybaugh: I'd rather see the city and the neighbors get together, and to dove tail what Rich said, have the neighbors take some little ownership of it and possibly upgrade to more substantial vegetation. Incorporate that with some berming and make a long term investment because I think that for years down the line you'H be back here with the color of the gen~ and the maintenance on the fence and other issues. I think it would be a good time to make a long temun investment. Take the money that would go into the fence and start down that pate Sacchet: Okay. Thank you Craig. With that I propose we take a 5 minut~ recess. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just make one announcement. Any person aggrieved of a variance can appeal that decision. This was 6 to 1. The other, we told the applicant, the other did not pass. It did not have 75 percent because it was 6 to 2. We did inform the applicant of that. That one does have to be appealed. But I just wanted to make sure that anybody that's here that 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 is not happy with the decision, because right now the decision stands unless it's appealed. Then it would go to the City Council. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Did you all get that? You can appeal. In a nutshell Alright, we'll take a 5 minute recess and then we continue. PUBLIC HEARING: ¢ON~IDER A REOUF. BT FOR I~EPLAT OF TWO LOT~ Wi'i'll A~ AREA QF 1.35 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMH~Y LOTS WITH VARIANCF~ ON PROPERTY ZONED RF_~IDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILy AND LOCATED AT 18~ PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LAND~ SCHROEDER ADDITION~ LARRY SC mOEDER, OOUG SCHROEOER Ln A ON. Slmrmeen M-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Feilc I have one. Sacche~ Go ahead Bruce. Feik: When this was before us a few months ago, I remember discussions regarding how low thi~ parcel is. Do you have any concerns regarding drainage? Sweidan: What the drainage may be for the proposed lot is going to be concern from the roof of the new house towards the west and towards the south. There's an existing hindrance. It looks like it's a storm sewer...the length and within the eastern portion of the lot. So but the new proposal is for, is to accumulate with the mainly with the service drainage in four directions and this storm sewer's connecting to our existing storm sewer too. Feik: So you're comfortable? Sweidan: Yes. Feilc Thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? I definitely share the same concern because I remember when this was last time in front of us there was definitely concern that it was rather wet, which probably would be about the garage area of the new house pad the way it's drawn in that area. So that there would be some build-up for the pad, is that the idea? Sweidan: Yes, it's approximately about addition about 2 feet build-up for the house pad and Sacchet: That should solve the drainage aspect And then ~ aspect of the access fixxn Pleasant View to have a driveway off of Pleasant View Road. That there's no concern about that? Sweidan: Because the sight distance is safe and them's_. Sacchet: Okay. And all the variances are pre-exit, okay. That's the comments I have. Steve, do you have a question? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Since we're talking about the drainage. If yon look on the preliminm'y plat here, on the very east side, in the southwest corne~ of the house, are those arrows them that are split in the different directions, does that mean part of the watex's going to the northwest and then part is going to the southeast? Is that kind of th~ divide? Are you kind of following me where we're at? So there's water going up north and then to the east onto the adjacem property which currently, it really wasn't directed that way. Sweidan: Seeing it go to the north? Sacchet: Steve are you, the arrows on the southwest comer7 Lillehaug: Right in hem, yeah. Can I point to them on the map? Right here. Does this water go this way? Sweidan: Yes. This is the point where there's an existing. Sacchet: Yeah, let's look at that because we're all definitely concerned about it. Lillehaug: And then just comment on the concerns. I know previously the adjacent landowner had concerns with water going onto his ~ and it appears that instead of all the water being directed more towards the south, it looks like the divide is going to make it go directly on his Sacchet: Can you point out where, what we're talking about Mak please. Sweidan: Okay. You talk about this area here? Lillehaug: Yep. Sweidan: Okay, now it's shooting or splitting actually at this point bern towards the west mainly. Now maybe you can't see this line here. ~ is the existing storm sewer and he is going to eliminate about 15 feet so he can make the opening here. There's another opening also south of it where it's going to take or service the southern drainag~ with that existing here. And then for storm sewer and is connecting the existing cash basin in the cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much Mak. Okay, this is a public heating. If anybody want to come forward. Address this item. Please do so now. Or the applicant, excuse me. Thanks. The applicant please come forward and make a presentation. State your name and address for the record. Doug Schroeden. Hi, I'm Doug Schroeder. Address is 2181 Majestic Way, which is in no relationship close to this but my parents live at 6430 Pleasant View Lane. And Sharmeen covered everything I think just excellent We're not going to do anything with it. My mom and dad were just concerned that they didn't want a house built in the back yard while they owned the property and we thought this was a good solution for both Curly and my parents so I guess that's where we're at. Any questions? Sacchet: Any questions of the applicant? Doug Schroeder: Okay, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, try again. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to address this item, please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. This is your mm to address this. Seeing nobody. Yep, there's somebody. Please come forward. Brian Cmmdhofec. My name is Brian Cnundhofer and I reside at 195 Pleasant View Road, which happens to be right on the west side of that property. And I mean I know they're probably not going to do anything with this so that's not an issue right now but somelime there will be and my garage is, as you can see, is clearly about a foot from the propet~ line fight there. And right now my foundation on there is pretty much gone due to water damager ami I'm still very con~ I have a Iow spot in my driveway as well and I'm just very concerned about them bringing more water onto my property. That would be my only real concern because now you're taking away, you know if you're putting in a hardscape in an area that's already very wet and that would be my only real concern. Just for future. Sacchet: And it was a concern that was raised last time that it came in front of us and engineexing assures us that this is mitigated reasonably, correct? Okay. Thank you for tminfing that out Anybody else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments. Discussion on this. We already have discussion over there. Claybaugh: We we~ hoping you wouldn't notice. Feik: No sign of disrespect Claybaugh: I would like to, ~ to re4ddress what the neighbor just stated here. Is that catch basis, is the sizing of that catch basin sufficient7 Sweidan: The existing is not a catch basin. Yeah, it's a storm... Could be from a plastic... Chybaugh: Is it 6 inch? 8 inch? What is it's capacity? Sweidan: I think it's about 8 inch. Audience: 12 inch. Clayhaugh: 127 Well my concern was, just to dove tail the gentleman's c. ommen~ is that it's in place right now, correct? And there's still standing water. He still has danmge to his foundation. Sweidan: And it will help. Overall the...his garage is maybe very flat area and that's why maybe his like concern about the water being around there. It's a very flat area. Chybaugh: Yeah, my concern is that what this sizing of whether it's an inlet or a catch basin or whatever term you want to use, is not going to be changed. Sweidan: Oh no. Claybaugh: Okay. And currently there's cause for concern. The introduction of a new residence there and the hard surface coverage is going to intensify that, okay. So it would seem nanxml to me that that would be a primary concern to ~ddress that and certainly i ,reprove it because it's 35 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 going to be under a greater burden once a new residence is placed them. So is them, in your mind a way to address that? Sweidan: There's no i ,mpmvement to the storm sewer. It's going to stay as it is. Claybaugh: I know there's nothing proposed on here but just from what you know about the situation, what would be a reasonable remedy or is there a way to upgrade what's there? Or is that a substantial endeavor. Sweidan: There could be a...in front of the garage on the pmpet~ line. Somehow to raise the elevation to avoid the water going to his garage. To keep it maintained within the prope~t line. The proposed property line. Slagle: So is it going to pond then? Sweidan: As a gathering point but as like a ponding. Claybaugh: So we haven't looked at what the capacity is for that inlet and what the burden is on it. Okay. Do you feel that we should be looking at that? Sweidan: We could look at it. Claybaugh: I would very much like you to take a look at that. Sweidan: Yeah, we could look for the calculations to see that... Claybaugh: That's all my comments. Feik: Let me follow up on thac We are looking at a proposed replac Preliminary plat. We're not looking at a house plan. We're not looking at any i ,ml~vements. To my knowledge at this point right? Aanenson: Correct. The nexus here would be is there adequacy of these systmm correct Feilc I understand that. So the grading change that we're looking at this plan isn't going to happen unless, until they build a house. Aanenson: C. orrec[ But when they come in for a building permit you can ~ _ttach conditions. If you want to attach them, as Craig was indicating, if you want the staff to review to make sure there's adequate drainage or somebody to make sure that there's no ponding. Feik: I understand that so I guess what Fm just clarifying is, nothing is in front of us now is going to change the existing conditions. Aanenson: That's correct. Feik: Thank you. Aanenson: But could they build a house tomorrow and change their mind? Yes. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: Yes, understand that. Okay, thank you. Sac. chex: Bethany? Tjomhom: Nothing. Sac. chex: Kurt? Rich? Steve? Lillehaug: Real quick- Congratulations Curly... Maybe a possible solution that we could add here is, it appears the low...maybe we could grade a swale back to that point and alleviate that problem on the west side. Other than that I fully support it, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I don't have much to add. I mean I'm glad to see you found a solution. I mn~mb~ when you were here Mr. Curly. Mr. McNulx Get it straight even_rosily. Yeah I remember when you were here last time and we had to turn you down and you found a solution that I believe works and that's good. I do have a concern about this drainage. I would say something like applicant work with staff to mitigate and i .reprove the drainage issues to the west and have it be at that. With that I would like to have a motion please. Feik: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of Pmliminazy Plat for the subdivision ~03-6 for the Schroeder Addition for 3 lots with variances as shown on the plans received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And an addition number 14. The applicant shall work with engineering to easure adequate drainage from the parcel. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~03-6 for Schroeder Addition for 3 lots with varlam~z as shown on the plans received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions: . Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall protect trees on proposed lots as well as trees in neighboring properties located next to the grading limits. . Any trees lost due to consmwfion that are not shown as such on plans shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter incbes. . Extend silt fence along the east side of Lot 3 toward the north and remove all silt fence when development is completed. 4. Show City Detail Plate Nos. 5300 and 5301. 5. Add a 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance. , All disturbed areas shall be resodded or reseeded within two weeks of grading completion. 7. Thc proposed driveway must be installed with a paved surface. 37 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 1 If fill is i .reported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route plan for approval. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. 10. Show the existing 2 foot contours. 12. The total SWMP fees of $4,451 are due and payable to the City at time of final plat recording. 13. Building Official conditions: encountered at excavatiom b. The new lot must be provided with separate sewer and water service~. 14. The applicant shall work with engineering to ensure adequate drainage from the parcel All voted in favor and the motion carried unantmo~ly with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: co.mEg A COMP tgm SIW P~ ~ O~~~ ~ROV~ ~R A 4~ ~ ~~0~ PROP~ ON ~ A~ ~~~ ~~ OF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~K ON PRQP~~ ~~ AG~~~ ~TA~ D~~ ~ Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Yes I had one. If you could turn to page, let's go to page 3 first. Your table at the bottom there. I don't have a previous table in front of me and it was for the Town and Country Bernardi property but does this, it seemed to me that the table that was prepmxxi for that property was kind of flip flopped and is that an acomtte statement? And if it is acowa~, would that be due to the fact that these are based, that this PUD represents basically all residential townhouses rather than more of a mix? Aanenson: Well I think it's pretty consistent. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehang: Oh it is consistent? Aanenson: Yeah. The townhouses pay more but then what's not being showed is the service cost and that was the same question that was raised on the other. I think it's consistent. Lillehaug: Okay. Then my next question would be on page 4. The second paragraph down it says in doing so we need to assure the land is provided for various land uses rather th~ responding to current market, whatever it's supposed to be there. Ozrrent market trends. Darling, whatever is ~. But could you elaborate on that statement. What says we need to do this and why? I think that's i ,mportant. Generous: Well the developer would probably be better at that but the townhonse development is a hot market fight now. Land is extxmsive. There's not a lot of it available for reside~i~ development and so they can bring forward the townhouse project and the absorption ra~ would probably be fairly high~ We concur with their analysis as far as that is. However our concern is we're giving up land to do that Land that could be developed otherwise and main~ a long term balance in our community. So we get contacts almost daily about converting industrial land to residential. Lillehaug: And that's what I'm getting at is why, why is this so i .mportant to keep it industrial? I mean I think I know why. The tax base. Generous: Well yeah, to keep that balance long term. GeuemHy residential doesn't pay it's own way. After you hit a certain price point it does. Office industrial pays in excess of it's tax rate so especially on the school side. There was a study done in the early 90's that showed residential cost $1.04 for every dollar of revenue you received. Office industrial and commercial cost 40 cents for every dollar in revenue, so it helps to balance out and keep your tax base reliable. Also you don't want to put everything in the same mix as far as main~ a ~y community. lust like we don't want to have all estate homes because there's not a long term markex for that. You want to have a life cycle type housing. Lillehaug: So what you're saying is this acreage is significant in the overall Chanhass~ goal. Generous: Right. It represents approximately 16 percent of our future industrial development. Lillehaug: So it is significant? Generous: Yes. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Slagle: A couple questions. Bob, you mentioned on page 2, aflex the figures. You noted 183 acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. Can I assume that that has all been developed into industrial? Generous: Yes, office warehouse, showroom space. Slagle: So we didn't divert any of it to medim~ density or so forth? Generous: No. 39 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 Slagle: Okay. Next question. I'm not a uaffic person but I guess I just want to know these figures that you're showing for round trip for 188 am. peak and 231 for medium density residential. Where do you get those? Generous: Well it's one of the attac~ts to the retx~ I use the Institute of Traffic Bngin~rs Trip Generation Sixth Edition Manual and it's based on either the housing type of in this instance the square footage of the industrial developmenc Slagle: Okay, so it's using square footage as sort of the baseline. Generous: Right. Slagle: So really if you had a different type of indus~ office, say less labor intensive, you might have fewer trips. Generous: ...it may be less. Slagle: Okay. I'm still not sure I understand the tax capacity taxes and city share. Completely, but maybe someone will ask that. If you have a chance to descn%e that a little later, that would be great. And I think the last thing I want to get at is, from staff's tmmpective we have this many units being proposed if we were to do a land use change. What do we have for Town and Country? Ballpark units. Aanenson: 370. Something like that. Slagle: Okay. So potentially you could have within a mile, using Audubon as your point to point, 800 or so units that could be developed if we went ahead with this. It'd be interesting to think what would ha~ ff this was first and I mean fellow commissioners, it'd be interesting to see how the dialogue would have been over the last 5 months. That's it. Sacchet: Kurt, any questions? Papke: Yeah. One of the issues is going to be the transition into Chaska here. What's across the street from the development in essence? Right now it's Cr~by Office Park directly across the street but the last time I drove by there I thought I saw a for sale sign on the property just across from the sub-station in Chaska. What is that zoned for? Generous: That's office industrial. Papke: Office industrial, so essentially the whole border along Chaska is aH going to be office industrial eventually? Papke: Okay. So we do have that issue. One of the things that the letter from the City of Chaska I just saw for the first time just before the meeting does bring up the issue of when. And I'd just like to point out, I worked in that Crosby Office Park for 6 years and there used to be an animal feed manuf~g facility in there that emitted some very interesting odors, okay. And this development will be down wind of that facility. I don't know if that still is in production but that might be worth checking into. It could be a consideration at some point. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thanks KurC Bethany. Tjomhom: I have a question regarding housing. Is ~ is the~ a n_~e~_ for more housing or is there a need for more industrial parks? Generous: There's a need for both. However, based on our comp plan we believe we can accommodate the housing on land that's guided for residential. But we rw, c,d to also offset that with industrial whcre there's not a lot of land guided for it and the mare you give up, it's very difficult to replace. Tjomhom: So then would there be another spot this could, thi~ development could go into? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. Papke: Just a question of clarifi~. When we say n__oeA_, who is having that need you're referring to7 Are you talking about a demand for housing versus the demand for industfiai7 I think the developer's perspective is that there's demamt, more demand for multi-unit housing right now as opposed to industrial office park, which tends to have a high vacancy rate. Now from the city's perspective, what's our need for tax base that you know, maybe it's worth just clarifying that one. Who's perspective are we stating need? Aanenson: Sure. Are you asldng that as a question? Sacchet: We are in questions right now. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Well if you go back to page 3 where the city just completed the Key Finandal Strategies, looking at tax base. Diversificatiom Trying to mainta~ that one-fmmh/one-third so part of the complexity is if you take this out, where do you replace it? And so okay well, we talked about that in the Town and Country one and it kind of goes back to Rich's question. The absorption and having that much at one intersection. In good faith they waited, waiting to, so if this went in, would that absorb some of the need for the other piece? I'm assuming that's what your dynamics and I guess that's the assmnpfion that we made that this would stay indusuial and based on that, moving the other piece, advancing that, allowing that one to go forward as the residential, based on this pace. It adds that complexity because where would you replace this, if we wanted to maintain that one-fourth to one-third, or 25 to 30 percent. Now we're going to go over here and say well, you're going to change from residential to industrial next to you, it just adds, it's hard to replace thaL That much when we're already trying to replace some of that with Town and Country. So does that answer your question? Papke: Yeah. I was more looking for clarification about Bethany's point than really asking an additional question. Aanenson: Well I think Bob tried to answer that. It's the immediate market demand and long term making solid decision, financial long term that's why I guess I couched it back in the Key Financial Strategies to go back and say, that would be the more. 41 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 Papke: On that topic just want to, you made a broad statement before that residential tends to require a $1.04 for every. Generous: Well that was based on the study, I believe it was Lakeville did in the early 90's. Papke: Do we know where the average price of this development fits in that Obviously you said there's a break over point where we begin to break even. Generous: R used to be $300,000. I'm not sure now. We use $240,(g)0 as a part of our analysis. Sacchet: Thank you. That's all your questions? Tjomhorn: Yes it is. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Yes. In here you said it's going to require mass grading for any development on this site. Being respective of the bluff area. Along with the mass grading we've got a total site here of 94 acres, if I'm not mistaken, correct? Feik: Of the 94 acres, how much of it is developed into townhomes7 As planned. Generous: 53-54. Feik: 53-54 acres. And those are, the 53 or 54 acres are consistent with the revenue dollars you show on the bottom of page 3 for city share. Generous: I just used the ordinance. Feik: Okay. ff this were to go commercial, and I spoke with you today on this earlier, ff this were to go to commercial, is it fair to say that you could even achieve this kind of density with commercial given the hills, the bluffs, the large pads you're going to need for 30,000-40,{X)0 square foot footprints, truck turn around's, everything else. What I'm getting at is, do you really think it's reasonable, the dollars that you show here for the office warehouse revenue dollars, are attainable given the slopes and the condition of the site? Can you get at that density to get those kinds of dollars? Generous: It's possible to do it and they've shown a plan for development of this site. Feik: But to do that you're going to, you mentioned you'd have to have probably some office. Pure office. Some higher. Generous: Well yeah, higher valued. Feik: Higher valued properties, so where Fm getting at is, the office warehouse city share or revenue dollars here are, is fairly speculative. Generous: Right. It's based on the assnrr~, tions. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: And there's only about $55,000 a year diff~ between townhonw.,s and the industrial. Generous: Yes. Feik: Okay. So it's not much. Let' s see here. I think the rest of my questions or comments I can wait for later. Thank you. Sacchet: CYaig. Thanks Bruce. Claybaugh: Most the questions have been asked but Kate I wanted to direct you to page 2. The second paragraph up from the botwm where you went through the sentence, since 1988 the year of the latest comprehensive plan was ~d~Fe~l, or adopted. Pardon me. 183 acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. That represents 25 percent since 1998. Is that pretty much on pace with what you saw the office industrial being developed or is that behind the pace? I'm just trying to get a sense of. Aanenson: Maybe a little lower, yeah. Claybaugh: Maybe a little lower. Aanenson: We had in the late 90's, we took down a lot of offw~ industrial. That was actually out pacing residential. Slagle: Say that again, you took down? Aanenson: Yeah, there was a lot of development that was occta'ring in the industrial parks that were moving pretty quickly. Mark Undestad's project for example. Generous: C. SM on the east. Slagle: So we built up? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Yes, right. They were actually more valuation histofi~y different than what we've experienced in the past generally residential permits have been higher value. Actually there was a number of years where we were actually more commercial indusUial value. Claybaugh: I'm assuming by recommending denial of this that you assign a lot of weight to maintaining that diversity. My concern is that we see applicants wanting to rezone office industrial residential but we're not going to see anything going back the other way. And it sounds like city staff is very committed to that diverse mix. Is that accurate7 Aanenson: Yes. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: A couple more questions. First of all, the role of the Planning Commi.qsiou is not to deal with tax issues, is that correct? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Aanenson: Well it's couched in. We gave you the policies of the city and ~y it's a factor in looking at the stability and economic viability in our comprehensive plan is an element so. Sacchet: Okay. In the staff report it refers compliance, or as it is non-compliance with performance standards. Could we just clarify what kind of perf~ standards you're referring to? C~nerous: It's based on the concept plan that they submitted that we're providing sensitive development in the Bluff Creek corridor. Reducing i .mpervious s~. Taking account of the topography. That's why some of our, should you approve it we had some recommendation that they look at different housing types and different configurations of the pmimrt~ to make it work better. Sacchet: That answers it. And then one more quick question on top of page 7. There is a summary of what it, benefits of a PUD and it states that in return for a PUD for the flexibility, the city is receiving developing that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Now in this particular case it is not consistent, correct? Generous: Correct This is what we would expect. Sacchet: Alright- That's all my questions. Any more questions? Slagle: One question. I'm sony I didn't ask. The W~ Pipeline easement. The applicant puts in one of their documents that that is a reason to be open for a land use change. Any thoughts on that? Aanenson: That's their argument. I don't think it's an argument for reside~ Slagle: Okay, so it wouldn't in your opinion it wouldn't matter if it's office industrial or medium? Aanenson: ~ Sacchet: Alright. Yep, one more Ck'aig? Claybaugh: Yeah I just wanted to check V~nen the church went in, is it Woodside? Feik: Westwood. Claybaugh: When that went in we had I believe it was Ho~ Devel~t come in afterwards for a round table session concerned about tapping into the infraztn~an'e that they expected to when we went through that rezoning. To me that was something that I found out after the fact that was unexpected. That they were counting on the infi~nure to be expanded through that property to the back side to feed fi.hum development. With that church going in, that no longer appears to be the case. Is there anything with respect to infrastructure that's been geared towards the zoning that's there that could cause any ftmm: hiccups with the sumaunding development7 You understand my question? You come in with your capital i .mpmv~ts you've geared those towards office industrial, I'm assuming. Generous: Right. Sizing. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Claybaugh: Right. With making a change in mzoning it, is them anything on the peripheral properties that may be affected, similar to what happened, yeah. Aanenson: Well that was one of the things under the BA that if you did choose to go forward, there isn't enough information on the concept at that level. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Actually that triggers another quexdon on my part Them isn't really much surrounding development expected because it's either across the street or across the wetland, but there is that power station. In the letter from the City of Chaska pointed out that they have an easement of access across. Do we know where that easement is? Could you point that out Bob or Kate? Generous: It's also included in the attachmem they have a descfiptiom The staff I handed out tonight. ...about in this area. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you. Only if there are more questions, I'm very interested to hear the presentation of the applicant. If you want to come forw~ and ~ your story. State your name and address for the record please. Jason Osbexg: Good evening. My name is Jason Osberg. Fm with Tollefson Development. Our address is 17271 Kenyon Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota, 55044. I'm here tonight as a means of presentation for our proposed townhome development, land use amendment on the Mattson property here in Chanhas~ I feel that we have a lot of information I'd like to share with you tonight that might help look at this in a more positive manner, and maybe take a look at it from our perspective. I know Bob has done a good job with the staff memo. Communicated with him on a regular basis for the last few weeks and while the information in there may be opini~ we respectfully disagree with a lot of his statements that have been made and that's what I want to share with you this evening. But maybe right away on some of the co~ that I heaud from the commission, it's i .nExnxant to keep in mind that 16 percent number of your inventory for commercial industrial, that only half of this site is usable becs_o~ of steep slopes or...open ~ as pan of that Bluff Creek con'id~, which we certainly intend to provide as part of our development here on the concept plan. The concept plan itself is a means or a tool that is workable. We submitted this as a method to get the dialogue going, as we heard that term earlier, dialogue. We want to get the discussion going with the city. We're open to expl~ just about any opportunity on this site that's residential in nature. Now we have presemed townhomes, 427 units which approximately is 8 units an acres on the net density, but ff there are other thin~ on the site, smaller lots, single family, detached villas, that type of thing, we are also amenable to looking at that if the city's open to this land use ameadment. Some of the advantages I guess tha/ we will see, I don't know how well that's going to show up. Thank you. You tallmd a little bit about tax base revenue. I mean I know this works both ways because we're going to be creating a residential development which is going to in~ services, but it's also i .mlxn-tant to know that you're going to have a near term or immediam absorption rate and you're going to have tax revenue coming into the city and that's going to help balance what taxes could be generated in the future for the commercial industrial. Park decision is a huge issue in many communities that we work in and we feel that this is a good oppommity to get the developer and the city working together on something that we can create, take the private land that's presently owned by Mr. Mattson and used for agricultural p~, and convert some of that into public open space for the good of the community and the benefit of not only the residents of our pwposed developmmt, but surrounding areas here in the hinterland. We talk about land end cash. We talk about a new concept that we see popping up in alternative to pools which is a spray park. I'll go into a little 45 Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003 more detail. I've got some pictures and some ideas to share with you of that in the futm~, but we'll also have interpretative areas because this is a nature corridor. We'd like to do some signage. We'd like to bring out the natural amenities of the site. We can create overlook areas on some of the bluff areas that capture the view sheds of the immediate are~ Bob mentioned a $240,000 price range or a price point, and that's kind of an average of what the builders are telling us that they'd like to be at, at this density. What we want to really bring out is that we can create affordability on this site and we can also have upscale housing as well. There's many areas on the site that lend itself better to back to back units and there's sites that, loc~ons on the site that lend itself to twin homes or single family homes with view sheds. So it's a wide range of affordability levels or income levels can be achieved. We talk a little bit about the grading. That was a concern that we heard earlier. Residential devel~ keep in mind, can be if it's done correctly, you can crea~ a development that enhances and ntiliTes the topography of the ~ whereas most commercial industrial sites and one of the commigsions mentioned, is going to take a ton of grading, and the flat surfaces and the large i ,mpervious areas, you're going to get that with residential but at least with, or you're going to get that with industrial but at least with residential you have some flexibility in working with the land and the contours. The pipeline easement was brought up as an argument. Well we feel as, if you're going to do go~nmetc-ial industrial development, you're going to need large parking lots. You're going to have larger buildings that are continuous and how do you build over that without creating problems or moving that easement. Residential can provide that flexib'dity. Reduction of the non-residential traffic through neighborhoods. In the staff report, the staff indicated that our proposed development would have a smaller i ,mpact on traffic trips in the neighborhood. Well if you look at those numbers based on what Bob put together, that's about half. We would reduce truck traffic through the neighborhoods. You've got really nice neighborhoods to the north and to the east. The ongoing maintenance of these buildings would be done by an association~ Therefore the quality and the overall look and curb appeal would be kept to a higher standard whereas a commercial industrial development, I know the City of Chanhassen has high building standards, but who's to say that those can't be blighted buildings in the. future as well so that's positive. Additional housing oppommities. Commissioner asked do you need this housing in Ctmnhassen today? Yes, you need housing. Yes, you need commercial industrial as well, but we're here to try to provide that oppommity for housing because that's our hitch. And then lastly the advantage would be a development relal~ fees paid to the city now, and that's a big thing in communities that we work in because with the budget cuts at the State, you're losing LGA. You've got a reduced city budget. Development fees can help subsidize those losses. One of the things that we saw in the e-mails was they didn't lilm, the neighbors didn't like townhomes being here and they bought into it being commercial induslrial site. Well we ~ that and we would be willing to or open to having a neighborhood meeting if the city would be in agreeance with us to pass this land use amendment. We'd be glad to work with the neighbors on site characteristics, site planning. Again the concept is something that can be tweaked. It's nothing that's in stone. So that's one other thing. On your adverse affects that the staff me, no talked about, one of the big things is that this is inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. Well we unde~uu~ that. That's why we're here tonight. We're asking to change that so that our proposed application is consistent with your official docmm~t. You talk about ~bility in the staff memo with adjacent land uses. Well if you look at the land use that's out there today, agriculture is inconsistent with single family residential and is inconsistent with industrial across the street in Chaska, so no matter what you guide it, commercial industriaL, residential, you're still going to have those inconsistencies and non-compatible land uses side by side. One of the commissioners talked about performance standards. Yes, I mean we understand that, in Bob's staff report he's referencing commercial industrial standards. However, if this is allowed to be residential, we would be open to meeting whatever perf~ce standards your residential code would call for. I touched on some of the other issues already earlier here but we have a financial analysis that was Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 prepared by professionals on tax i .mpact. Now, if the Planning Commission would like I've got the full financial analysis. I know that's, you're here more for ordinance and comprehensive plan but that information's available not only to you but City Council and if there's me~ of the general public that would like to see that, I do have additional copies here but it's the big word to note is that we are showing in this financial analysis the difference of close to 11 million dollars in the year 2021 from the difference of residential, our proposed residential development versus commewial industrial office site utilizing the Matt,son property. Now as Bob mentioned, he thought the appreciation values were high. I can't speak for or against that That's not my line of work, but we can certainly take another look at that if the Planning Commission's more interested. But we are, like I said, we're open to different housing types. I've got concepuml pictures of different units that may be appropriate on the site, if the City re-guides it to residential uses here, if anybody's interested in looking at those. And then I also want to just take the last minute of my presentation and show some of this sprinkler concel~ This is again a concept that is kind of taking the place of public pools in neighborhoods and they're a lil~le less safety hazard. They're zero depth. They're quite fun from what the people who pr/xtuce these told me. This is a manufacturer out of Cansds and these are some pictures that they sent me but this is just kind of a general gist of if we were to do a residential development, we'd like to offer something lmique and dit:ferellt to the City of Cha21ba~sen. Something that you presently do not already have. So with that, I've got a million other things but I know we're short on time so I'd love to take any questions. I know there are members of the public who are also here to talk about this. Sacchet: Thank you very much_ Questions from the applican No questi~ from the applicant? Lillehaug: I do have a question. I mean we're also here to look at the approval of a cortcept PUD, correct? So looking at the plan here, just a couple details on it that I'd like you to ~aa,v. ss. It appears that on the narth we have a railroad tracks. On the west we have a county road. On the east we have a wetland with a power line running down the edge of the ~ that we're talking about here. On the south you have a substation. In your mind as a residential neighborhood, kind of locked in by these pa_rmnetem, does it really fit in there? Maybe in the inner it does but in your opinion does the very outskirts of this ~, is it good for residential neighborhood to be in here? Jason Osberg: You know the marketplace is telling us that it is because there's that type of demand. If you look at the concept plan, we do show a trail system We show some spraying. We would provide adequate buffering along County Road 18. We'd provide ~g around the substation. It's no diff~ I mean there's I believe Pulte has a project hem in ehanhassen that is on the comer of 5 and 41, if I'm not mistaken. I mean I think it would kind of be in that same framework. It's just going to take, you know you're going to orientate your houses a little different, away from those high traffic areas, but it's definitely workable. And I do have our engineer from Sathre-Berquist here tonight if there are any technical questions about the plan, I'm sure Bob would be happy to answer those. Aanenson: Can I ask a question? I did receive a lot of phone c~lls from developers so it was my understanding that you would sell this and you are the developer, is that c. onect? Jason Osberg: We are the developer. Aanenson: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Jason Osberg: We do not build homes. We're simply a land developer. Aanenson: So someone else would come in and do the project Jason Osberg: Yeah. No, what I mean is, we would be the lead applicam. Now if it was Home Builder A, B, C, they would come in along with us and then they would submit their product type and then it would have to get all the. Aanenson: I believe it went out for notice because I did receive phone calls. I was just trying to understand the relationship of who's going to be, if this were to go forward the, showing the product? Jason Osberg: Okay. We have. Aanenson: Does Tollefson Development have a product or do you work with somebody else to present the product? Jason Osberg: We work with several home builders, both national and local. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that's i .mlxrrtam- Go alw. ad Rich_ Slagle: Two questions. I will come back and ask for some examples of who those folks are. But what I'd like to ask you is one, would you be ~m, and I refer to an article that just was in the paper the last few weeks of how, if you wilL, America now lives in homes and drives to the store, to whatever. No one walks. My question is, is would you be open to some commercial, call it support? James Osberg: Like a maybe a new urbanism that's kind of a mixed use? Maybe lower level retail, above level living or separate units entirely? At this point we're open to anything that works in the marketplace. We're open to anything that the City of Chanhassen would allow residential. We just need to apply for the land use ame~tdment and able to get to that next step. Slagle: I understand. Couple more questions. One is, I'm more looking for a feel on this versus a raw number. But what do you think of the number of units that you're asking for? I mean are you amenable if you will to lower numb~ of units? Jmm, s Osberg: Again, we're open to anything at this point. We uncle~a~l that to make this land use amen~t there's going to have to be give and take. We represent a typical 8 unit per acre townhome development that some of the builders have told us that they'd like to build their product type, that's what we show hem. We don't show Builder A, B, C's exact profile here but we show something very, very similar. No, we are open to working one way or another. I've got examples of 40 foot wide detached lots that some builders have indicated interest in that look fairly nice, and may kind of lean towards that new u~banism maybe you were referring to in your previous question. Slagle: Last question then would be some of the examples of the builders that you ~y work with. Jarm. s Osberg: We deal with the national builders are, and Fm not going to say any specific to this development because, we deal with Pulte Homes. We deal with Orrin Thompson, US Homes, Lenar. We deal with, had contact with Town and Country Homes, and I know that was a Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003 development that was brought up near here. Ryland, Rotflund, David Bernard Homes. We have relationships with the National Home Builders, but we also have local home builders and some of the larger ones like M.W. John.~2n, Nettegard ~on, Donnay Homes, Avalon. Slagle: Let me ask you more specifically. Can you give me some examples of some developments that you've actually been the lead on that I could see? James Osberg: For a strict townhome development, there's one in Cottage Grove called Shots at Elmar Village. That incorporal~s a neighborhood retail center along with it. That ~ s M.W. Johnson. We are in fact tonight going in front of the City of Shakopee with Pulte on another deal where we would do the exact same thing here where we're the lead developer, and that one actually has about 1,300 units on 160 acres. So that I can give you conceptual plans for that. Slagle: Okay. That would be enough for me to see. Okay. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Does your model and analysis take into account as far as the drive for all these units, does it take into account the possible concept PUD that was proposed south of here? Does it take into account the 300 or whatever homes that are. James Osberg: From Town and Country's development? No. What our's does is specifically addresses the Mattson ~. We haven't, we didn't look beyond our development for trips, if that' s what you're referring to. Lillehaug: Not really trips. More the market drive. Absorption. James Osberg: Absorption- LiHehaug: Right. James Osberg: Yeah, we're looking at a 4 year absorption rate is what the financial analysis uses, if I recall correctly. And that's at 110 roughly, or 107, 106 units. Lillehaug: So you're saying it doesn't take into account, I don't know which one may or may not be here first but if it doesn't take into accom another equal size development next to it? James Osberg: No, because I can tell you this from the marketplace, that builder aside, they're doing their thing. There's plenty of other builders who have stepped up to the plate and said, if this goes forward we'd like to build in them. We honestly probably have requests for about 1,O00 units in Chanhassen. Our site doesn't even acco~ that, if that were to be approved. So the market is definitely there by other builders. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Okay, how about which direction, the other side of the room. Kurt first. Papke: Yeah, I couldn't find it when I read through it again just recently but I believe you made. a comment somewhere that the site is amenable to a walkable situation, that them are things within walking distance. Just curious as to what you think is within walking distance of this development? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 James Osberg: I guess the easy answer to that is you've got walking trails here in your parks and open space just to the east of the property. From a non-vehicular standpoint, utilizing these trail connections to where they lead in Chanhassen, I believe they go up to County Road 5, is that correct? Generous: Yeah. James Osberg: Leading to County Road 5 and the area that we're in right now, you've got some retail. You've got some food. You've got some beverage. You've got that type of non-vehicular option if you were to connect with this trail development. Papke: So you're referring tn'imafily to the trail then? James Osberg: Correct. But again, like commissioner said earlier, we can look at doing a mixed use development fight here on the site. One of the reasons why we didn't do that however is the D.R. Horton application that was turned in in '96-97, they had a mixed use and that was denied. We thought we'd go with something ~t. Sacchet: Bethany? Tjomhom: Nothing. Sacchet: Bruce? Feilc Just one, and it's kind of a joint question. You had said a Ix~ion of thi~ was guided for park and rec. How many acres was that? James Osberg: From what Fve seen. Feik: Or Kate, if you want to answer jointly. Aanenson: There is nothing guided parks and rec. That would be a taking. There would be some extraction. There is the Bluff Creek overlay zone that they have w acco~ but there is no per se park dedication. There is wetlands. There is the overlay district which they have to dedicate. It's shown on the map, the green, the Bluff Creek overlay. But it would be an extraction. Where there's commercial industrial we would take the extraction in the trails. For the park fees, excuse me. I'm using jargom We would take park and trail dedication fees. We would also put trails in place whether it be reai~ or industrial. Feik: Okay, so there's not a significant amount of acreage that's called guided if you will, to inappropriately use that word. Aanenson: No, there is shown on the comp plan but that's, this goes back to the original comp plan where we're trying to preserve. It's really e~'umbered within the overlay district, the primary overlay district. That's the no touch zone so no m~tt_~r what the land use is, that overlay district still remains in place so that's a no touch zone. Feik: Okay, so out of the 94 acres how much of that is, falls in that portion? Aanenson: Well there's 53 developable acres so that 5O Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: 40 percent. Aanenson: 40 percent. Some of that's wetland. Some of that' s the slope. Slagle: But you could under a PUD request Aanenson: A density Iransfer? Slagle: Or request land to be set aside for a neighborhood park or whatever. Feik: You're saying there's 30-35 acres or something like that? Aanenson: Correct Feik: So therefore in this table then, instead of thia being 94 acres, it should be 34 acres less because no matter what you do with it, it's not going to be office industrial. Aanenson: Yeah, but you know what, you'd have to take that same philosophy and apply it to every project. We took every project on the gross acreage. Feilc Oh you did? Aanenson: Yes. All whole. Feik: That's the question. Aanenson: So we'd have to try to extrapo~ each one and it's too complex so. Feik: That's the question, thanks. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Nothing new to add. Sacchet: Really quick, bec__ause I want to get to the residents. I want to address this. There's two things kind of peaked special interest in your presemation~ One is more a question for staff. Like you pointed out that the 16 percent of the city's office industrial space are cotrelat~ with really only a little more than haft of this propet~ being developable. So I'd like to clarify with staff, what are the 16 percent? Is it the developable part or how does this correlate? Generous: It was based on our assurrgrfion of the developable, the square footage that could be developed on the site. Sacchet: So the 16 percent is the developable part? Generous: Right, if we take out 15 percent for right-of-way, and 30 percent for open space. Sacchet: Okay, so that is factored in. And the other thing, that's not really a question but I am pnT~.led how you reason that demand makes it suitable for residential, but that's more somethin~ that's going to come into comments I would think. Did you want to add anything else? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 James Osberg: If I could Mr. Chairman. Getting back to the parks and open space and trails. We show on the concept plan, sorry. We show this southeast comer as 12 ½ acres as open space for the park system. We also would be showing internal trail system. We also show this neighborhood park near the bluff area that was identified in the staff memo as a potential neighborhood park as a location potential for that spray park. Now this Bob is about 4 acres? The neighborhood, roughly 3 ~ acres. Some of this 12 ½ acres is not usable, from what I. Aanenson: It's ali in the primary zone and the bluff is the no touch zone so they're crediting themselves for giving that as park space and that's I guess what we were trying to clarify. Sacchet: That there wouldn't be any possibility to do roach in them, okay. James Osberg: And we have this sddifional remnant piece here that because it is a PUD we understand that we have to be flexible in terms of what we provide. This is an area the City would like parkland here. Or if there's other areas within the gollgept plan, we're open to working with that. Sacchet: Well I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. With that I'd like to invite the public. This is a public hearing. If you want to come forward. Address this item. This is your time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, and curious to see what you have to say. A1 Gomez: Al Gomez. I live acmslly across the way from the water preserve. I've got to tell you I'm a little disappointed. I assume you're all taxpaying members of the community. You guys obviously have some very compmhemive plans in front of you. We're here with a letter that basically states nothing more than there's a planned devel~ so as you are all asking questions and referencing numbers, and maybe we don't need that much detail, but I sure would like more than this letter that states what is going on~ The big proposition that we talk about is changing the zoning disturbs me a lot as a taxpayer because when I bought the property, I called the city and asked what that zoning was and made a business decision to buy the tn'opegy based on what was there. And if we can change that at the time, because I know you asked why is that ~t, that we change it or not change it, it is exactly that. We made those decisions. The builder's obviously here for a main reason. They're here to make a profit. We talk a lot about the taxing and taxation that would generate revenue. I didn't hear anything about the expenses that come with 427 units being put into Chanhassen. I Immortally can't afford another referendnm for more schools. Will Tollefson or any other developer pay for those additional schools and/or classrooms that are going to be require& Infras~ We lalk about that corridor and the commercial prope~es that are them. The railroad, I think it's peff~ for that continued development. I don't see how putting in commercial property's going to generate that much more traffic than when we put 420 units and the families that could potentially come and to from there. You also refer to another development that for again for all of us that are just here on behalf of this one, have no idea about so that's all new to us on another 300 and some units. Rich, I think you referred to what's within the one mile of that pmtxa'ty. I th~ ffyou take Gall~ onto 5, it's amazing how many of these townhomea we've developed in this area and the influx of traffic, of people. Yes, tax revenue but also the expenses that come with it. Again a lot of things that I saw that personally I would prefer to get a lot more information for a better summary than a one page saying here's the proposition. What are the i ,mpacts? Sacchet: It's my understanding that the staff reports am available to the public. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Aanenson: Yes, we did speak to several neighbors and staff repom were handed out. Anybody that calls us, we always offer them to come get a copy or send them an e-mail them a copy. Al C, omez: Could you odd that to your letters in the ftmlm saying. Aaneuson: This is how big this staff report is. Sacchet: But it should be noted. A1 Oomez: But what I'm saying is that is available utxm request. Aanenson: It is on there. Al Gomez: Is it on hexe? Then my problem. Generous: We will have our e-mail addresses in the future. Al Oomez: The e-mail, you and I talked about that and again if you have e-mail addresses, it's a quicker means of communication. Aanenson: We always encourage people to get the staff report. Sacchet: Also you have to be aware that these staff reports axe available like middle to latex part of the previous week so they're not available really a long time before but they are available. Al Comez: And I don't know that I need the details that you get but something a little more than this one page...o~ a lot of it is philosophical as to why we're heine. And you've got a lot more detail to base your decisions and your questions that we don't see. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments very much. Liilehaug: To make a comment on one of your questions. The staff repoa does address the impact on the schools, etc, so that is in here and it's not left untamed. So we are aware of all that. Al Comez: Bob, could I get a cx)py? Aanenson: sure. Sacchet: Thank you very much. I'm sure there are other people that want to address this item- Next please. Please st_a_t_e your name and ~_ddress. Andy Kayati: My name is Andy Kayati. I'm at 8715 Valley View Phce. I'm in the Bluff Creek Estates community right there, and on the east side of the proposed development. When I moved here 9 years ago I looked at this beaufi~ area and I said you know, this is wonderfid. I really like what it looks like. I said I can envision that at some point in time time's going to be something there. I could envision, you know knowing that it was light industt4~ that I could live with light industrial there. I have light industrial just to the north of me on the other side of the adjacent parcels, just to the other side of our residential location ~. I said if there's anything that I don't want there, it's what I call high density housing, and I don't care how you term this, this is high density housing. The number of vehicles on the roads there, I don't see that they could sustain them for years to come because I don't see any rapid changes coming to th~ 53 Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003 infrastructure of that area any time soon. Looking out my back kitchen window I can observe the traffic light that was just put in a couple years ago at the corner of Audubon and Lyman~ The traffic essentially backs up there at 5:00 in the aftern~ [gobably 20 or 30 cars deep. Try to make that turn when you're going to Chaska High to pick up your kid, which I do. The watershed area that they alluded to, and if you don't mind I'd like to bring this up. This area here, probably you've got, you've got maybe an inch. It's not usable.., so to consider that park use, it's ridiculous. F m also very, very concerned I think with looldng at the amount of the percentage of utilization that you're taking out of office and light industrial. 16 percent. That's a considerable amount to be taken out of that usage. And you're taking that out of, I know we're not supposed to bring up taxes here but the infrasu~cture base and the tax base and transferring it over to the residential. What kind of i ,ml~ct is it going to have on police service~? I know schools are taken into consideration, but there's.a school right up the street, Bluff ~ that you can't even get into now. All of those things with 437 new units coming in, and by the you know, by the slightest estimsto, s if there's 1 ½ cars per unit you're talking about 600 vehicles a day. So I guess I take issue with the reduced trips for this type of residential versus industrial use them. In addition to that, any type of smaller lot usage for single family houses I would oppose that in addition to this. If they're reasonable sized lots, which we have there, which I consider to be reasonable sized lots which are approximstely a third of an acre. We're just a little under that Something like that may be reasonable but anything as far as a smaller use lot I would never agree to. You know as I said, the i .mpact on the area and for that reason I do oppose this wholeheaxtedly. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address the commission? Please do so at this time. I also want to remind you, it ~'t necessarily add more weight if you repeat points that have already been made. Marsba Strand: Good evening. My name is Marsha Strand and I live in Bluff Creek Es~_ tea as well at 8631 Valley View Court. My biggest concerns have been gmtty much presemed but I want to add the component of noise. The topography of that area has a valley in there and right now the kids love to go down and play in that swamp~ and you hear every word bouncing around our cul-de-sac that they're saying down t3em, and I think that their water park or whatever they call it, spray park, sounds like a great amount of fun to a lot of small screaming children. And I live you know among a lot of children and I know that when they have fun they scream and holler and nm around, and I would not expect that that would be any different in that kind of park. And so that adds another compounding factor that again we didn't anticipate residential when we bought our property them and hope that unless there's a much more compelling reason to change the planned development, than we've heard tonight, that you choose not to do that. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else wants to address this item7 This is your moment to do so. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Mike Solbeinc Hi there, I'm Mike Solheim. My address is 1780 Mound, Minnesota. I'm not actually from Chanhassen but I just want to stand ap and give you a little bit of background or what I think of ToHefson Development. I've worked with them and I know the family. It's like Jason says, they're very amenable to any kind of proposal that the Council and the community and the members that live out there who it's going to affect, for this project to work. So I'm just asking that everybody think that this is just a footp~t of what's going to happen, but it's very much amenable to what the City of Chanhazsen and it's members want. So I just wanted to get up and say that. Appreciate your time. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Slagle: I have a question for you though. Just so I tmderst~d the relationship, when you say work with them. Mike Solheirm I work with them. ,M:filiated with them to a point. I am a ~ broker so I do loans, so I work with builders and developers to try to get them to secure the end loans. Slagle: Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 l. aredo Drive. I don't live in that area but I am concerned about the development of that area. Our comp plan is 5 years old, to 1998. That's 5 years ago. I think dedicating that land for industrial use was in the best interest of the city and I think it is now. I don't think things have changed that much. I also have a point to make about Town and Country. I kind of get the feeling that Town and Country is a done deal. Okay, it's a concept plan period. Sacchet: It's not a done deal. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. And the other thing is, the City Council agreed to stxmd alxatt what, $110,000 or more on a study that did not include this are~ I believe, correct? But it's the land adjacent to this area, and I wonder why this parcel which is also zoned industrial was excluded from that development study. Sacchet: Can you address that please? Aanenson: That's a very good question and that would be one of our concerns is the timing on this whole thing is, the irt.re, lication is that we're doing a large environmental assessment to the south area. The 600 acres in the 2005 MUSA. Looking at the right land uses, trip generation, all that and to change this now at this time seems a little premature which is I would concur with that. Debbie Lloyd: Yeah Fd like to see what the outcome of that study is. Aanenson: Well this does require an EA also. If thig was to go forward based on the nmnber of units, it would require an EA but you're right, the two need to be working together. Aanenson: I'm sorry, yeah to look at the tm~c. All those sort of things. Wetlands. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. Carrie Krych: Fm Carrie Krych and I am at 2127 Boulder, other side. Slagle: Stone Creek? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Carrie Krych: Stone Creek, yep. And we're just, some of us on Boulder have a little bit different viewpoint than what's been said today. None of us, that we've spoken to of my neighlx~rs on Boulder want to see 427 townhomes. Absolutely none of us would ever think that was a good idea. However, fight industrial or whatever is a liRle fearfifl as well It's right in my back yard, as I'm sure it's in some of your's but I'm fearful of what else could be put there that would be great for me to look at every day. Every day for 6 months of the year I've got woods. I can't see anything. Build whatever you want. It's real quiet...but and it's my 3 kids that scream: but 6 months ! see everything. Everything because there are no trees. The~'s no leaves and so I see everything so if it were you know, you know nice residential, that would be a better solution for me than industrial. I don't really want trucks hauling in and out in my back yard either so. So I think we, my neighbors as we talked and as I came today, we didn't, we were that boy, we want to be, it's going to be residential. We'd choose residential and be screened as best we can from some light industrial because we don't want the trucks. We don't want that pattern and then you know the fear, I don't even know. I want to ask, where is this Town and Country? No one else, maybe you all know. I don't know where it is. Where's it supposed to be going? I want to know because that frightens me to ~ I mean all of a sudden you're bringing up 800 potential or 500 potential units on top of each other, that's crazy. Slagle: Go south on Audubon up the hill: and. Sacchet: On the east. Slagle: Now on the east side. Saam: This is the proposed development. Aanenson: But I think what they need to recogniTe is that... Sacchet: Past the metal dinosaur. Aanenson: 600 acres that are going to be corning into development. Not just ail residential but there's 600 acres that in the year 2005 they're starting to irr?lement. Some of it's industrial and some of it's going to be residential. Carrie Krych: I am concerned, I mean Chanhas~ is an expensive city for a homeowner to live in and we live in nice priced homes and I want to live in neighborhoods where it's thoughtful planning where we have, to plot industrial into cetfain areas, sometimes I'm concerned that Chanhassen is a little, not as thought out as some of our other communities and so I get concerned about that and concerned about the light industrial. Sacchet: I don't know whether it's any consolation to you but we do have a very well worked out comprehensive plan and the matter in front of us tonight is an applicant requesting a change to that. I would also want to point out, and I don't want to belabor this but it's likely that you could have buffering, berrning with indusuial as with residential. Aanenson: Can I just clarify too the ordinance does require from residential to induslx4_al 100 foot landscaping bemz Buffer. Sacchet: Thank you for c~g that Carrie Krych: That is helpful. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much for speaking up. Please go ahead. Mary Frey: Just one thing that, Mary Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. I'm opposed for everything what they've said too and I guess if it were, yeah obviously single family residential would be preferential over fight indnstdal but if you were trying to win us over you probably shouldn't have done a, I mean as I calculated it om, that'd be 427 units on 53 developable acres which puts it about 8 units on an acre. In addition to that a water park plus parking and driveway. That's incredible. I mean you know, why not start out that way and then if you want to talk with the neighbors, we would have listened probably if it would have been residential single family. Sacchet: If I could ask you to address the commission thouglz That's really the propose of this. Mary Frey: That's all I wanted to ask. Sac. chex: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright, who hasn't spoken yet? Who wants to speak? Please, it's your mm. Greg Scallon: My name is Greg Scallom I live at 1814 Valley Ridge Trail, and I guess you know, I've heard what all the neighbors say ami I kind of agree. I just look at, you know I see the City of Chanhassen Land Use Plan and then there's a lot of time and money that has gone into this plan over the course of the years and this is the vision that we have and I guess I just have a question as far as the, you've got the current market is hot for residential but this is looking at a long term plan. I guess I don't know what, how compelling of a reason that you would need to change, make a significaut change in this plato And I guess that's just my only question. Sacchet: Thank you. That's definitely the question in front of us tonight. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Slagle: Any f~? Sacchet: Doesn't look like it. Any non-farmers? Alright, if nobody else wants to address this item I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and commen~. You is inclined to start addressing this item? Any, do you want to jump in? Go ahead. Feilc Sure, at the risk of alienating all of my neighbors by the way, which is all of that crowd. I think we need to keep some things into paxpecfive. This land will be developed. It's going to happen. There's some issues regarding when, or noise and odors that, current issues I should say, coming in from the commercial stuff to the west. If this goes indusUial, just let me warn you those odors could get that much closer. They could be right across the pond. Just something to be aware of. Schools, it's been mentioned we've got a very large AUAR going on down the street. 600 acres. It's guided 50150 ' ' rial. At 300 acres at anywhere near reasonable density, less than this but more than single family, we're looking at 1,000 units that are going in in the next 10 years, who knows what. So the school issue is really an issue. R's going to happen. We're going to be having all of the referendums and evet3rthing else so I guess in part of it I want my neighbors and everybody to think about is some~ it's beXter, the devil you know and the devil you don't. I'm wondering if we would be having the same concerns up here if the density was proposed something siLmificantly less. I'm not sure we would. So I guess I can be persuaded to approve this, much to the chagrin of my neighlmm but again, but Frn not sure that this is necessarily as bad as everybody says. I think: like I say, it's going to be developed and sometimes it's better to have the devil you know than the you devil you don't. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thanks. Craig, do you want to jmnp in next? Claybaugh: I can't argue with logic like that but I guess the one point I'd like to make is that if the commission as a body was of a mind to ~ this, entextaln approving this, I would prefer to table it and have staff come back and prepare the documen~on geared more towards an approval so we're looking at it from that perspective and all the thin~ that go to that. From an approval standpoint I'm not getting from the package what I do when it's prepared in that fashion. This is prepared for denial and I know that you've touched on some thin~ should we consider approval but I just, it seems like a lot of information and not enough time and not enough material to really break it down. So that would be my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bethany, do you want to make your comment or? Tjomhorn: I think I'd just second what he just said. I think it's a thick packet. It's a lot to think about. It's a lot to understand but I do think that this was geared for industrial property and people have purchased homes. They have businesses in the industrial park area because of this. They've been promised something that it was for ~ and I don't know if it's right to all of a sudden change our mind. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Kurt, do you want to address it? Papke: Yeah. One of the issues that was brought up tonight was the, there seems to be a fair amount of surprise in the neighbors about the pace of development. That the Town and Country development seems to have been news to a number of people, and I think that's a relevant issue. I think one of the other residents mentioned they don't see the compelling reason to change from the comprehensive plan at this point. I think if you put those two thin~ together, from my perspective anyway, it seems like we have an oppommity to change our plans and do so at a time when there' s already another development that's being considered and the timing just seems poor to move forward. Why would we want to change a plan that's been around for 5 years that a lot of thought went into, just because we have an oppommity to change it? At a time when there's another development going on. So not that plans are meant to be cast in concrete and live for 20 years, but on the other hand you don't just change them because you have an oppommity to change them so that's my perspective. Sacchet: Good point, thanks Kurt. Rich. Slagle: The only thing FII add is, I go back to my gut reaction when I first saw this property and I wondered how in the world we would build office, factories, plants on that ~. I mean there's going to be a ton of grading to be dane if it stays within the current land use that it's pwposed. On the other hand, as comminsioners have stated, this migh~ be a premature concept to change it at this point. I would definitely be in favor of tabling this to get additional inf~on and a perspective sort of both favoring and opposing. I will say this to my fellow commissioners, if we were to approve a land use change and followed it up with a PUD, I would be highly interested in some really ~ve, and I'H look at the applicant as I say this, ~ve approaches to planning for this parcel. A little different than what I accepted on prior nights here so basically what I'm saying is, I think I'm okay keeping it the way it is, but if the majority at this point feel like we can explore it some more, I'm willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Steve. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: This is my first choice for where we want to put the school. I wish the school would go there. Could staff explain to me what precedence the applicant needs to set maybe for us even to consider changing the land use. Is there findings? Aanenson: We have flndin~ to recommend that you not change it, correct. Lillehaug: Okay. So when I read through your findings, I agree with most of them~ So in that regard I don't see any extenuating circumstances. Why we would want to change the land use guidance here in this case. So I would su~ denying the applicants in this case to change the land use. And then I also want to discuss the idea of tabling this. I'm not sure if we can get enough clear guidance to the applicant or staff on what we expect out of this to even change our, or to come back to this tabling and make a better decision here. I think what's been proposed is enough for us to consider the request at this point and I really would encourage the rest of the commissioners to make a decision here tonighL The key is the land use change. Either you're comfortable with changing it or you're not. At this point I'm not comfortable changing it. I think it's been guided correctly in this case based on the adjacem land use in Chaska, and just the general surroundings in that area. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I'm pretty clear about this. I do want to commend the applicant for bringing forward a very well thought through and proposal argued very well the benefits of it. However, I think I would be misleading you by supporting even tabling this because I cannot support the proposed change of the land use. With the railroad on one side, the road that's going to become a four lane road on two others, across of which is going to be industrial with a power station that's going to have to be expanded on the south comer, it does not sound suitable to me personally for residential use~ There are some advantages, and given that according to our studies the industrial use is going to have a higher traffic load. As a r~tt_~ of fact did he say about twice the tmf~c load, that is something to comider and I don't think some of the residents were quite clear about that. However, the design of Lyman Boulevard is, the concept for it is such to actually be able to carry that sort of traffic with 212 freeway coming in, that's going to be, that's all in the plan that it can carry that Iraffic load from an engineering viewpoint. That's been all considered. In terms of the tax base, that's really more a City Cotmcil issue than one for us. However, looking at the financial aspect, even though that is not really in our scope that much in terms of consideration, I undenmmd the predicament of the current owner wanting to move this propett3t. I understand the interest of the developer wanting to make it residential because that's the hot item in the marke~ right now. He can move it. However from a viewpoint of the city, I would be tempted to consider that short sighted, as a reason to make it residential. I mean because there is demand right now for this particular product does not make it suitable for residential. And I also want to point out for the benefit of the commissioners here that with an issue dealing with the comprehensive plan, the city has ~us leeway. I mean that's actually the area where we as commissioners have the most flexibility. I mean this is not a situation where we map it to a particular ordinance or a piece of code and we have to determine does it fit or not. This is really a point of decision where each of us has to make a decision whether this is suitable, is in the interest of the city overall That's our responsl'bility with this recommendation, and ultimately a decision of the City Council. So basically in view of demand for housing for this particular product of housing does not make this site suitable, and I think this site is better suited for o~ce/ind~. It has good access to roads. It's next to industrial. It has access to rail. It can be buffered from the neighboring residential use by bermiug, by landscaping, what have you. As a matter of fact as our ~ of Planning pointed out, that's a requirement for residential to go in them. The topography, it's not ideal for industrial residential. There is no ideal situation here but I clearly think that the reasons to change this land use 59 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 amendment are clearly tilting me to be opposed, clearly opposed to this change. So that's my comment. Are there any other comments or more discussion from, yes Rich_ Slagle: I just have one real quick one Mr. Chair, and very well spoken if I may srlrl_3 I want to share with mostly the neighbors. I want to say this before the vote. I would encourage all of you to, if you will, recruit additional members of your neighborhoods, whether you suptxm it or are against it, for the upcoming meeting ff it carries on to City Council, which I think it will. Because I have to be honest, Stone Creek, there might be one or two people heae. I mean tlm~'s a lot of homes just across the railroad and Fm surprised that we don't see more. So please, get the neighbors involved. I know the City Council would appreciate hearing from more folks. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Any other comments? More discussion? In the absence of that I would like to. Claybaugh: The interest that I had or in throwing out tabling was ff people were of a mind to the thing that I didn't add to it is, I am not inclined to vote for this but if others are, like Rich said. ff you're interested in exploring it, also I'm willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. I think we're ready tO try a motion. This will be interesting. Lillehaug: Fll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential:Medium Density based on inconsistency Sacchet: I'll second that. Lillelmug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Lami Use Map amendment from ~ to ResidentS-Medium Deity imsed on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and nonconformance with the perrormam:e standard. Ail voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: This item goes to City Council on June 6m, is that correct? June 9~. Do we want to s~? Lillehaug: Do we have to vote on the second one? Sacchet: We have B. We're not done yet. There's a second mofiom Lillehaug: The Planning Commission reconamn~ denial of concept PUD for a townhouse development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Sacchet: With condition as attached. I second thac Lillehaug: Is there any conditions? Generous: Not for denial. Sacchet: Okay, the denial is none. Okay. Second. Planning Commission M~ing - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commtgsion recnmmends denial of the concept Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. All voted in favor, except Slagle who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. Sacchet: Do you want to say why you're abstaining Rich? Slagle: No. Sacchet: Do we need to mmmaxize for cotmcil any of the highlights of our discussion7 Do we want to summarize some of the points? Basically we agree with staff report. That' s the basis for our denial, correct? Okay, we leave it at that. Thank you very much. Appredate your proposal APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commi.qsion meeting dated May 6, 2003 as amended by Chairman Sacchet to change the vote on page 2 to include one abstention. So the vote should be recorded as 3-0-1. Chatrman Sacchet adjourned the Phmnin~ Connni~on meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 61